BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD
F.A. 1049/2007 against C.C. 129/2007, Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
The Officer-in-charge
Coco-Cola Ltd.
44-69, Moulali-F
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1 And
1) Gudipudi Surendra
S/o. Venkaiah
Ammanabrolu (V)
N.G. Padu Mandal
Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) Anjaneya Provisions & Cool Drinks
Proprietor – Edara Anjaneyulu
Ammanabrole Village
N.G. Padu Mandal
Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3) Munagapati Venkateswara Rao @ Babu
Coca-Cola & Thumsup Dealer
Himalaya Cool Drinks
Vetapalem Village & Mandal
Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3.
F.A. 1050/2007 against C.C. 130/2007, Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
The Officer-in-charge
M/s. Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Manufacturer of Sprite
Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal
Guntur Dist. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1 And
1) Salagala Jagjeevanram
Advocate, Yerrazerla (V)
Ongole Mandal
Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) Thammana Sreenivasa Rao
S/o. Venkata Ramaiah
Yerazerla (V), Ongole (M)
Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3) Coca-Cola Dealer
Behind Vijaya Bank
Dharavari Thota 5th Line
Ongole, Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3.
F.A. 1099/2007 against C.C. 202/2007, Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
The Manufacturer, Officer-in-charge
Coco-Cola Ltd. 44-69, Moulali
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1 And
1) Endluri Samuel Raj
S/o. Late Endluri Singaiah
Age: 47 years,
R/o. Yerajarla (V)
Ongole (M), Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) Jururi Sivaiah
Age: 37 years,
R/o. Yerajarla (V)
Ongole (M), Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3) The Distributor
Coco-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Dharavari Thota 5th Line
Ongole, Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3.
F.A. 719/2007 against C.C. 257/2006, Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
M/s. Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
44-69, Moulali
Hyderabad.
Rep. by R. Narayana Swamy *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1 And
1) Dandu Raja Gopal
S/o. Avulaiah,
D.No. 6/137, Srinagar Colony
1st Line, Ongole
Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) K. Venkanna
Proprietor, Sri Venkateswara Agencies
Dharavari Thota, Beside Petrol Bunk
Ongole, Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3) K. Venkanna
Proprietor of KVS Cool Drinks
Beside Gopi Krishna Theatre
Near SBMC, Ongole
Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3.
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. S. Sethna Baria.
Counsel for the Resp: Mr. V.G.S. Rao. (R1)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) These appeals are preferred by opposite party No. 1 against the orders of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay compensation and costs in the above complaints.
2) Though the Dist. Forum had passed separate orders in each of the C.C. filed against the opposite parties by different complainants, we deem it fit that all these matter can be clubbed together for passing a common order the facts and law are being common and importantly the appellants are parties to all the proceedings against which orders were passed.
3) The case of the complainants in brief is that they purchased Maza/Sprite bottles of 300 ml from Op2 shop distributed by Op3 and manufactured by Op1/appellant. When he opened the bottles they found a small foreign object , when questioned Op2 stated that he was selling the bottle as it was supplied to it. Alleging the presence of foreign material was itself deficiency in service and therefore sought compensation of Rs. 1 lakh each together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
4) Opposite Party No. 3 filed counter adopted by Opposite Party No. 1 resisting the case. It denied each and every allegation made therein. It contended that the bottle was not sent for analysis as required u/s 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act to prove that a foreign object was existing, and on this ground alone it was liable to be dismissed. The entire cleaning, and preparation etc. would be by mechanical process and there was not even a minute chance for anything to be left in the bottle. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) Opposite Party No. 2 did not file any counter.
6) The complainants in proof of their case filed their affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A4 and the bottle is marked as MO1, while the appellant filed the affidavit evidence of its dealer Sri U. Venkateswara Rao and did not file any documents.
7) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that even to the naked eye the foreign object was visible and that there was no need to send for analysis. The manufacturer did not take any steps to prove that they did not manufacture MO1 nor send it to chemical analysis, and accordingly directed the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 12,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards costs.
8) Aggrieved by the said decision, Opposite Party No. 1/appellant preferred these appeals contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that mandatory provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act has not been followed before opining that a foreign object found place in the bottles. The entire manufacturing of the cool drinks is mechanized and therefore they are not responsible for any deficiency in service. The entire process was made with utmost care and precaution in conformity with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Standards of Weights and Measures Act, Packaged Commodity Rules and Food Products Order etc. It is owned by Hindustan Coca-Cola Ltd. a repudiated company with high production values and integrity. The complainants failed to file any bills of purchase. The complainants might have tampered the product and therefore prayed that the appeals be allowed.
9) The point that arises for consideration is whether the orders of the Dist. Forum are vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
10) The complainants allege that they purchased soft drink by name Maza/Sprite manufactured by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 from opposite party No. 2 a cool drinks vendor distributed by opposite party No. 3 the dealer of the appellant To their surprise they found foreign object in the bottles. After issuing notice under Ex. A1 which the appellant had received under acknowledgment Ex. A2 the complainants filed the complaints alleging that foreign objects were found inside the bottles amounting to deficiency in service. They have also submitted the bottles which were marked as MOs-1. The cool drink shop owner, opposite party No. 2, did not dispute the said fact by contesting the matter. He was set-exparte. Opposite party No. 3 did not dispute that opposite party No. 2 was not its vendor. Opposite Party No. 3 being the distributor ought to have found out whether in fact he sold the disputed soft drink bottles to the complainants. When the said fact was not in dispute the question of filing receipts for purchase of cool drink bottles will not arise. Basically, the cool drinks are purchased across the counter and no bills would be taken.
11) The complainants themselves produced the cool drink bottles which are marked as MOs-1 in all these cases wherein the Dist. Forum had observed a foreign material to the naked eye. It is not a case where the complainants were questioning that the cool drink was of inferior quality, in order to enable them to get it tested or analyzed by a laboratory. When a foreign article is visible to the naked eye the question of sending it to the expert as required u/s 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act would not arise.
If really the appellant disputes, it could have requested the Dist. Forum to send the bottle to analysis. It dare not submit an application nor requested the Dist. Forum to send the sample for analysis in order to prove that it was tampered or that the complainant had introduced such foreign material into the bottles in order to claim compensation. When the complainants could prove their version by submitting the bottles before the Dist. Forum and when the appellant was of the opinion that a foreign object was introduced stealthily in order to get some compensation, we repeat that it could have sent it to an expert to prove the same.
12) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that these beverages were prepared with utmost care and caution and in conformity with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Standards of Weights and Measures Act, Packaged Commodity Rules and Food Products Order etc. It might be that they were taking all the care and precaution, however, when it was brought to their notice that there was some foreign object in some of the bottles they ought to have found out as to how such foreign material were entered into the bottles.
13) Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that there are number of stages involved before bottling the cool drinks viz., pre-rinse, warm water soaking, pre-final rinse, final rinse, caustic carry over test, Methylene blue test, filling and crowning etc. Instead of routine contentions when the very bottle were produced before the Dist. Forum and when they had the advantage for sending the bottle to analysis, there was no reason why the procedure was not adhered to. The Dist. Forum has observed that there was foreign material in the cool drink bottles purchased by the complainants as it was clear to the naked eye. The appellant did not discharge the burden that the foreign body found in the bottles was not during the course of manufacturing. The Dist. Forum after considering all these circumstances opined that the presence of foreign material in cool drink bottles would amounts to deficiency in service and accordingly awarded compensation and in the light of the fact that the appellant is a Multi National Company (MNC) dealing in soft drinks, it cannot be said to be high. It is moderate, legal and just. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact and law in this regard.
14) In the result the appeals are dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 1,000/- in each of the appeals. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 25. 02. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
