DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 441 of 29.11.2017

                                      Decided on:   20.8.2021

Deepak Sood aged about 37 years s/o Sh.S.K.Sood R/o H.No.4906, Sheetal Colony, Rajpura,Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. through its MD/Manager,Baddi Himachal Pradesh.
2. Sood Trading Co. B-2/1277, Banwari Market, Patiala Road, Rajpura District Patiala.                                       …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.Vinay Sood, counsel for complainant

                                      Sh.P.S.Walia, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      OP No.2 ex-parte.                  

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Deepak Sood (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant on 3.10.2017 purchased 2 cases of Cold Drink i.e. one case each of 200 ML of Fanta and 600ML each, for the consideration of Rs.930/- from OP No.2, which was manufactured by OP No.1 and the batch number of the same was 200B and date of manufacturing as 24.7.2017. It is averred that at the moment he started to serve the same, one of his friend namely Rakesh Kumar found some black foreign articles in one bottle of Fanta Cold Drink, manufactured by OP No.1.The complainant visited OP No.2 and complaint about the adulterated drink and also requested him to take back the bottles and to refund the amount but OP No.2 flatly refused to do so. It is averred that the OP No.2 has sold poisonous product containing foreign particle, in the market and their act and conduct shows deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony, tension and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.18,00,000, Rs.1,00,000/- for unwanted litigation and Rs.50,000/- as expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OPs. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply, whereas none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and was thus proceeded against exparte.
4. In the written reply filed by OP No.1preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and same is false, frivolous and  vague and that no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant.
5. On merits, it is submitted that bottling operation of the OP is such a sophisticated with high tech machines and it is impossible that a micro sized particle enters the bottle and it is a clear case of tempering of bottle as there are many cases of refitting of seal of bottle and thereby blackmailing the multinational company and as such OP is not liable to pay any compensation. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C2 and closed the evidence.
7. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Gurjeet Singh,Vice President, Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd and closed the evidence.
8. To prove the case the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his affidavit and has deposed as per the complaint,Ex.C1 is the bill of Sood Trading Company vide which he had purchased the cold drink.
9. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. In the present complaint the main OP No.2 is ex-parte and the entire cold drink for Rs.930/- was purchased from Sood Trading Company, Patiala Road, Rajpura on 3.10.2017.The complainant has not proved that Sood Trading Company was authorized agent of Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and it has purchased some cold drink from Kandhari Beverages. In these days there are so many spurious cold drinks available in the Indian Market and without the evidence that same was purchased from authorized dealer of Kandhari Beverages or it was manufactured by Kandhari Beverages, no liability can be fixed against OP No.1.So as the cold drink was sold by OP No.2, it being spurious in nature, so the complaint is allowed against OP No.2. More so the OP No.2 has not appeared and bothered to rebut the case of the complainant.
11. So due to our above discussion the complaint is allowed and OP No.2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.930/- to the complainant. OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation and another amount of Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses to the complainant.          

Compliance of the order be made by the OP No.2 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:20.8.2021

                                          Vinod Kumar Gulati                    Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                   Member                                 President