BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 8th day of December, 2016
F.A.2/2015 & F.A.9/2016
FIRST APPPEAL No. 2/2015
Mohamed Annas, S/o Mohamed Mustafa,
President, Muslim Munnetra Munnani,
No.14, Yanam Venkatachala Pillai Street,
Puducherry. ……….. Appellant
Vs.
1. M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Thiruvallur High Road,
Madhura Nemam Village, Vellavedu,
Thiruvalluvar District, T.N.
2. M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
HCCB Pvt. Ltd., R.S.No.21 Kurumbapet,
Vazudavur Road, Puducherry.
3. M/s Green City Departmental Store,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
No.81, Aurobindo Street,
Puducherry. ………….. Respondents
FIRST APPEAL No.9/2016
.
1. M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Thiruvallur High Road,
Madhura Nemam Village, Vellavedu,
Thiruvalluvar District, T.N.
2. M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
HCCB Pvt. Ltd., R.S.No.21 Kurumbapet,
Vazudavur Road, Puducherry. ……….. Appellants/O.P.s 1 & 2
Vs.
1. Mohamed Annas, S/o Mohamed Mustafa,
President, Muslim Munnetra Munnani,
No.14, Yanam Venkatachala Pillai Street,
Puducherry. ……….. Respondent/Complainant
2. M/s Green City Departmental Store,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
No.81, Aurobindo Street,
Puducherry. ………….. Respondent/O.P.No.3
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.18/2014, dt.03.12.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.18/2014
Mohamed Annas, S/o Mohamed Mustafa,
President, Muslim Munnetra Munnani,
No.14, Yanam Venkatachala Pillai Street,
Puducherry. ……….. Complainant
Vs.
1. M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Thiruvallur High Road,
Madhura Nemam Village, Vellavedu,
Thiruvalluvar District, T.N.
2. M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
HCCB Pvt. Ltd., R.S.No.21 Kurumbapet,
Vazudavur Road, Puducherry.
3. M/s Green City Departmental Store,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
No.81, Aurobindo Street,
Puducherry. ………….. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
TMT. K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT IN F.A.2/2015:
Thiru R.Mugundhan,
Advocate, Puducherry
FOR RESPONDENTS IN F.A.2/2015:
Tvl A.P.Rajagopal, Rajesh Krishna &
H.Sendilkumar
Advocates, Puducherry
FOR THE APPELLANTS IN F.A.9/2016:
Tvl A.P.Rajagopal, Rajesh Krishna &
H.Sendilkumar
Advocates, Puducherry
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Exparte.
C O M M O N O R D E R
(By Hon'ble Justice President)
The First Appeals 2/2015 and 9/2016 are directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry ('District Forum' for short) dated 03.12.2014 made in C.C.No.18/2014.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in the said complaint are the appellants in F.A.No.9/2016. The complainant before the District Forum is the appellant in F.A.No.2/2015. The parties are referred to the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum.
3. The complainant has put for the following facts before the District Forum.
He has purchased two bottles of 400 ml coco cola drink on 04.11.2013 manufactured by 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party is the distributor in Puducherry region. He consumed one bottle around 8.00 p.m. on 05.11.2013. Immediately after an hour he has vomited and suffered loose motion also. He was rushed to Indira Gandhi Government General Hospital & Post Graduate Institute, Puducherry on the same day around 9.00 p.m. and got treatment. He returned back. But, suddenly he has again vomited and also suffered loose motion. Again he has been taken to New Medical Centre, Puducherry for treatment at 1.00 a.m. and got treatment. Later, he found that some foreign element in the other bottle of coco cola drink purchased from the 3rd opposite party. Due to carelessness and negligence in manufacturing and distributing the soft drinks to the general public, the 1st opposite party made the complainant to suffer both mentally and physically. Therefore, the complainant caused an advocate notice on 11.11.2013 to the opposite parties and they acknowledged the same on 14.11.2013. Since there was no reply from the opposite parties, he has filed the complaint before the District Forum.
3. The opposite parties remained absent and set exparte on 04.07.2014. Thereafter, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and through him Exs.C1 to C8 were filed and marked. The coco-cola bottle, which has not been used, has been marked as M.O.1. One Mr.G.O.Upadhyaya, Senior Public Analyst has been examined as CW2 and through him the report was marked as Ex.C9.
4. Three points were formulated by the District Forum for consideration. They are:
1. Whether the complainant is the consumer to O.P.s?
2. Whether the Coca-Cola drink purchased by the complainant contained
Foreign particles? If so, whether it amounts to unfair trade practice?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?
5. For the first point, the District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer to the opposite parties and for the second point, the District Forum held that the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice and negligence. Therefore, the District Forum while allowing the complaint, have directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
6. As already stated, both the complainant and the opposite parties have preferred the referred appeals.
7. On slapping the compensation and costs, the opposite parties have preferred the appeal and for enhancement of compensation, the complainant has preferred the appeal.
8. The District Forum in Paragraph 10 of the order, has opined that the complainant has not adduced any evidence with regard to the opened coca-cola bottle except Ex.C2 and C3, which are casualty receipts issued by Indira Gandhi Government General Hospital & Research Institute and prescription issued by New Medical Centre respectively. It has also been opined that no medical expert was examined to prove his allegation in respect of vomiting and loose motion because of the consumption of another opened bottle. Para 10 of the order of the District forum is extracted below:
" 10. In respect of the allegation made by the complainant regarding the consumption of another opened coca-cola bottle the complainant did not adduce any oral evidence except Exs.C2 & C3. To substantiate his case, no medical expert was examined by the complainant to prove his allegation in respect of vomiting and loose motion caused only because of the consumption of another opened coca-cola bottle."
9. While, in the next paragraph, the District Forum found that the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice and sold the defective goods, hazardous to human life and finally the District Forum held that the allegations of the complainant is proved and allowed the complaint. Paragraph 11 of the District Forum order is extracted below:
"11. From the above discussion and material on the record, it is clear that the opposite parties were indulging unfair trade practice and sold the defective goods, hazardous to the human life. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are guilty of selling soft drinks which are defective in nature. In the result, the allegation of the complainant is proved and this complaint is hereby allowed. The complainant is entitled for the compensation."
10. We are unable to understand the reasoning of the District forum. The paragraphs 10 and 11 are contradict to each other. When the District Forum find that the complainant has not established his case through medical expert, it is not known how the District Forum came to the conclusion that the opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice and sold the defective goods.
11. Therefore, we are of the view that the District Forum has not dealt with the matter in proper perspective. Further, the opposite parties were remained exparte before the District Forum and that there was no proper explanation from the same.
12. In view of the above said position, we are of the view that the matter is to be remanded to District Forum and the District Forum shall dispose of the matter afresh.
13. Taking such view, the matter is remanded to the District Forum for fresh disposal. The opposite parties shall be given time to file reply version within the time fixed by the District Forum. The opposite parties shall file their reply version within the time granted by the District Forum without seeking adjournment. After receipt of reply version, the District Forum shall dispose of the matter after taking evidence and marking the documents afresh, if any. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the opposite parties in F.A.No.9/2016 has been allowed and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the matter afresh in the manner set out earlier. In view of the said position, there require no consideration of the appeal preferred by the complainant in F.A.2/2015. Therefore, the said appeal stands closed. However, we are make it clear that the appellant in F.A.2/2015 is at liberty to request the District Forum for grant of sufficient compensation, if chose to do so. We are making very clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. However, there is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2016
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
