BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1324/2005 against C.D.No.62/2002 , District Forum, Krishna , Machilipatnam
Between:
M/s. Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Atmakuru Village,
Mangalagiri Mandal , Guntur District. ...Appellant/
Opp.party no.2
And
1.M.Nagulu Meera, S/o.M.Masthan,
Aged about 28 years,
R/o.Valandapalem Machilipatnam,
Krishna District. ... Respondent /
Complainant
2. B.M.M.S.Murthy , Distributor ,
The Coco-Cola Company, Chemmanagiripeta,
Opp.Mahalakshmi Temple, House of Jaladi Rama Rao,
Machilipatnam. ... Respondent/
Opp.party no.1
Counsel for the appellant : M/s.S.Leoraj
Counsel for the respondents : M/s.S.Ramachandra Prasad –R2.
R1- served
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order: (Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
***
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opp.party no.2 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to set aside the order passed by the District Forum, Krishna Machilipatnam in C.D.No.62/2002 dt. 28.10.2004.
The respondent no.1 herein is the complainant before District Forum. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to declare the cool drink Limca as hazardous which will affect the health of the consumers, to direct the opp.parties not to offer the hazardous goods manufactured by the 2nd opp.party for sale. , to direct the opp.parties to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale, to direct the opp.parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony caused to the complainant and to grant costs.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant has purchased the cool drink Limca of 200 ml. on 2.5.2002 from a petty shop and while opening the said bottle he has observed some hard material inside the bottle and thereby he keenly observed and found some white coloured hard pieces inside the bottle four to five in number and he has also observed some dust in the cool drink and some of the pieces are dumping towards the bottom of the bottle. The opp.party no.2 is the manufacturer of the said cool drink and opp.party no.1 is the distributor. The complainant without opening the said bottle approached the 1st opp.party for appropriate action but he gave evasive reply. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to declare the cool drink Limca as hazardous which will affect the health of the consumers, to direct the opp.parties not to offer the hazardous goods manufactured by the 2nd opp.party for sale , to direct the opp.parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony caused to the complainant and to grant costs.
The opp.party no.1 filed counter contending that in case the complainant found any spurious substance or dust in the cool drink bottle the complainant should have immediately given a police complaint and should have sent the said bottle for analysis by the Govt. Laboratory or any independent laboratory. The conduct of the complainant in not seeking remedial methods either under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 or any other enactment and also the failure on the part of the complaint to offer the bottle for inspection by the Government Laboratory or independent Laboratory is fatal to the case of the complainant in requesting the Dist. Forum to declare the cool drink as hazardous goods affecting the health of the consumers. The complainant has not suffered any loss or injury on account of the bottle containing the alleged substances as the contents of the said bottle was not consumed at all.
The opp.party no.2 filed counter contending that the complainant has not chosen to furnish the particulars of petty dealer from whom he purchased the cool drink and there are no authorised petty dealers for this opp.party. The products of this opp.party are subjected to most advanced inspection technology available both human and mechanical to ensure the purity of product . There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party no.2 . The opp.party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings , allowed the complaint in part directing the opp.parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation and also to pay costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Aggrieved by the said order the opp.party no.2 preferred this appeal .
The point for determination arises in this appeal is whether the order passed by the District Forum is sustainable?
There is no dispute with regard to the complainant has purchased Limca Bottle from a petty shop , that the opp.party no.1 is the distributor and opp.party no 2 is the manufacturer of the said cooldrink. The complainant after purchase of cool drink has noticed some foreign material inside the bottle . The District Forum sent the said cool drink bottle for analysis to the Director , A.P.Forensic Science Laboratory , Hyderabad . Ex.C1 is the report of the said laboratory wherein it is stated that they have received 1. A sealed Limca 200 ml. bottle containing pale white coloured liquid along with foreign material , 2. A sealed sprite 200 ml. bottle containing transparent liquid with foreign material , 3. Two sealed Limca 200ml. bottle containing white colour liquid, 4. Two sealed Sprit 200 ml. bottles containing transparent liquid. . It is stated that items 1 to 4 physically under magnification and it is opined that items 1 to 4 are intact , the colour & printing on the lids of items 1 & 2 are differing from those of items 3 & 4 respectively , the printing on the necks on items 1 & 2 is 24.4.2002 & 10.4.2002 where as 23.1.2004 & 24.12.2003 was printed on the neck of items 3 & 4 respective and the shape & size of items 1 and 2 are differing from those of items 3 & 4 respectively.
The appellant/opp.party no.2 submits that the complaint filed by the complainant itself is not maintainable and the dispute raised is not a consumer dispute. The respondent/complainant contended that the dispute is a consumer dispute finding of the District Forum may be confirmed . The documentary evidence filed by the complainant goes to show that the complainant purchased Limca bottle. After purchase of the cooldrink when he has noticed foreign material in the bottle, without opening the bottle he approached opp.party no.1 and pointed out that there is foreign material in the cool drink and the opp.party no.1 did not take any steps. The appellant contended that the complainant ought to have rejected the goods and seek alternative for another Limca bottle. The submission made by the appellant is not sustainable. The appellant further submits that the complainant failed to disclose the source of purchase except saying that on 2.5.2002 he purchased sprite cool drink of 200 ml. from a petty shop and he had not disclosed the door number or the name of the person from whom he bought it. Under Section 14(a) “Vendor disclose the name etc. of the person from whom the article of food purchased . Every vendor of an article of food shall if so required, disclose to the Food Inspector the name , address and other particulars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food”. The respondent no.1 submits that Section 14 (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is not applicable in the present case is concerned . The appellant further submits that for non joinder of necessary party i.e. the petty shop from whom the complainant alleged to have bought the cool drinks , the complaint is liable to be dismissed The respondent no. 1 contended that the District Forum elaborately discussed and given finding on this aspect , there is no necessity to implead the petty shop vendor as party . There is no dispute the opp.party no.2 is the manufacturer and opp.party no.1 is the distributor of the cool drinks and there is no denial with regard to the cooldrinks manufactured by the opp.party no.2 is supplied to the distributor and distributor in turn supplied to the petty shop vendor and from petty shop the complainant purchased the cool drink. . There is no necessity to implead the petty shop vendor as party .
The appellant contended that their company maintained sophesticated manufacturing practices that too with advanced technology and that the complainant has not consumed the sprite and he has not suffered anything and compensation awarded at Rs.5000/- is excessive one. The respondent no.1 submits that the cool drink bottle containing hazarduous material which may cause danger to the health , the appellant is a multi national company , if the said cool drink is consumed by the consumers their health will be spoiled and the compensation awarded at Rs.5000/- may be confirmed . As per the Ex.C1 report of Forensic Science Laboratory it is proved that there is foreign material in the bottle . In the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is excessive . The compensation awarded by the District Forum is reduced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.3000/-
In the result appeal is partly allowed. Compensation awarded by the District Forum is reduced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.3000/- In all other aspects order of the District Forum is confirmed . Time for compliance six weeks.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Pm*
