Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/216/2019

C T Viswanthan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Green Elevators Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

R K Ramaiah

20 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 17.08.2012

Date of Reservation      : 01.09.2022

Date of Order               : 20.09.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 195/2012

TUESDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Mr. K. Murugan,

S/o. D. Kumaravelu,

No.1, Second Street,

North Jaganathan Nagar,

Villivakkam,

Chennai 600 049.                                                           ... Complainant                 

 

..Vs..

 

1.The General Manager,

   Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Ltd,

   Nemam Post, Tiruvallur District.

 

2.The Proprietor [Coca-Cola Distributor],

   HCC Private Limited,

   [Care of Sova Private Limited],

   No-21, Woods Road,

   Royapettah, Chennai.

 

3.The Proprietor,

    Sree Sastha Medicals,

    Old No.25, New No.48,

    Periyar Salai, Vanniya Teynampet,

    Chennai 600 018.                                                      ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for Complainant                    : M/s. K.Jothisivam

Counsel for Opposite Parties 1 and 2    : M/s. R. Parthasarathy

Counsel for Opposite Party 3               : Dismissed

 

        On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to repay the Fanta 200 ml cool drink cost of Rs.10/- and to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of this complaint and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the advocate fee.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had purchased a 200 ml Fanta cool drink from the 3^rd Opposite Party on 01.05.2012. When he was about to open the bottle he saw contaminated particles inside the Fanta bottle and when enquired with the 3^rd Opposite Party about the same he was informed that they get stock from the 2^nd Opposite Party and sell the same in retail and that the 1^st Opposite Party is solely liable for any defect in the cool drink. The 1^st Opposite Party had manufactured the Fanta in a negligent manner, the 2^nd Opposite Party without checking the same had supplied to the 3^rd Opposite Party to sell the same in the market which is just nothing but deficiency of service causing mental agony to the Complainant. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties maintain high standard of quality and integrity in producing all the products, with atmost attention to quality as public confidence in quality and authenticity of the product is critical to the business. Section 14 provides for payment to be awarded by way of compensation to a consumer only for any loss or injury suffered by the Consumer due to the negligent of the Opposite Parties. In the present case the Complainant failed to prove any loss or damages and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint has not been filed as contemplated under section 12 read with section 13 of the Act. The Complainant has filed the present complaint without the necessary progressal formalities and casts doubts on the veracity of the complaint itself.  The ingredients direct as well as indirect are subject to a series of analogical quality test they ensure that they conform to the Coco Coca Company standards. Further, standards are maintained for good manufacturing practices to ensure hygienic and sanitary condition so as to eliminate the likelihood of product spoilage because of presence of any extraneous matters. There is no scope of carelessness or negligence of any sort on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, since all the bottling plants of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are fitted with Robust State-of-the-Art Machinery which is fully automatic. It is impossible for any foreign particle to be found in the preform PET container or in the filled bottle. The Complainant failed to substantiate his claim of Rs.83,010/- as compensation, which would be beyond human comprehension that the very sight some alien particle in a beverage to produce such a shock and mental agony so as to claim a fanciful figure of Rs.83,010/-. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

 

4.     The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and on the side of Opposite Parties 1 and 2 no document was marked. As no steps was taken by the Complainant to serve notice on the 3^rd Opposite Party. Complaint as against the 3^rd Opposite Party stands dismissed.  

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled for?

Point No.1:-

        The Complainant has averred that on 01.05.2012 he had purchased a 200 ml Fanta Cool Drink from the 3^rd Opposite Party. When he noticed some contaminated particles inside the 200 ml Fanta Bottle he enquired the sales person of the 3^rd Opposite Party who informed that the 1^st Opposite Party being manufacturer is solely liable for any defect in the cool drink. Further it was averred that the 1^st Opposite Party had not taken proper care in manufacturing the Fanta Bottle and the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Party having supplied and sold the same in the market are liable for deficiency of service. The Complainant had filed an Application for sending the bottle for Food Analysis, Laboratory which was allowed. The Commissionerate of Food Safety, Food Analysis Laboratory, King Institute Campus, Guindy, Chennai-32 vide report dated 02.04.2013 bearing report No.OTH-12/DCDRF/ 2012-13 had given an analysis report stating that “The sample is found to contain black colour dust particles to the extent of 0.007% the presence of which makes the sample unwholesome & not fit for consumption and hence unsafe food under Sec.3(1)(zz)(x)&(xi) of FSS Act, 2006”, Ex.C1. The Opposite Party remained exparte and based on the report Ex.C1, this Commission by its order dated 16.11.2017 allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 filed F.A.No.248/2019 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, and the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was pleased to allow the F.A and remanded back for fresh disposal subsequently the Opposite Party filed Written Version, Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments.

        The contention of the Opposite Parties was that where the Complainant alleges defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, to obtain sample of the goods in question in the manner as specified in section 13(1) that is duly sealed and authenticated in the manner prescribed and refer to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction for making an analysis or test at the time of filing of the complaint and the Complainant has filed the present complaint without necessary procedural formalities could not be accepted, because the complainant had obtained proper Food Analysis Report as found in Ex.C-1.

Further the contention of the Opposite Party is that the details connected with the alleged product such as batch number, manufacturing date and that there is no proof that the Opposite Parties have manufactured the said Cool Drink and even the test report did not disclose the manufacturers name and other particulars cannot be sustained, in view of the fact that the certificate of analysis, Ex.C1 clearly discloses the name of the manufacturer, date of manufacture, batch Number and all other details revealing that the Fanta Bottle was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties in their written version and Written Arguments had an length described about the manufacturing process of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties and that they maintain high standard of manufacturing which is certified globally as governed by FSSAI STANDARDS. However there is no mention about the analysis report issued by the Commissionerate of Food Safety, Food Analysis Laboratory neither in the written version, nor in the proof affidavit and written arguments. This report has not been rebutted by the Opposite Parties.  Ex.C1 would reveal that the drink was hazard for human consumption and  manufacturing and bottling such contaminated drink by the 1^st Opposite Party and offering it for sale the 2^nd Opposite Party have committed deficiency of service. The Opposite Parties is duty bound to ensure that reasonable care is taken while manufacturing and placing the products for sale so as to avoid any injury to the Consumer. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered as against the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties.

In view of the above discussions, this Commission is of the considered view that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of service.

Point Nos.2 and 3:-

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10/- towards cost of the fanta 200 ml cool drink and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.5000/-. The Complaint against the 3^rd Opposite Party stands dismissed. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally  directed to pay a sum of Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten Only) towards cost of the Fanta 200 ml Cool Drink and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 20^th day of September 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	18.06.2012	Copy of Photo of the Fanta 200ml
Ex.A2	01.05.2012	Copy of Cash Bill for Fanta 200 ml
Ex.A3	18.06.2012	Copy of Legal Notice to Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	19.06.2012	Copy of Postal Acknowledgement
Ex.A5	19.06.2012	Copy of Postal Acknowledgement
Ex.A6	20.06.2012	Copy of Postal Acknowledgement

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT