BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
C.C. No. 58/2007
Between:
M/s. Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd.
Amended as per Order in
I.A. No. 1816 /2009
Dt. 9. 9. 2009.
M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Sonapati Bapat Marg
Lower Parel (West)
Mumbai- 400 013. *** Complainant
And
1) M/s. Himjal Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. 7, Phase-III, IDA
Pashamylaram
Patan Cheru Mandal
Medak District.
2) M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Enkay Towers
Udyog Vihar-5
Gurgaon, Haryana-121 106
3) M/s. Srikaa Acqua Mineral Pvt. Ltd.
8-3-430/1/21, First Floor,
NSE Employees Society
Yellareddy Guda, Ameerpet
Hyderabad-500 073.
4) M/s. The Coca Cola Company
1, Coca-Cola Plaza, Atlanta
GA-30313 USA.
5) The Bureau of Indian Standards
Manak Bhavan, 9
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi-110 002. *** Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. B.S. Prasad
Counsel for the OPs: Mr. C.R. Sridharan- OP1
Mr. Srinivas Ivyengar- OP2
Mr. G. Rama Subba Rao- OP3
Mr. O. Manohar Reddy – OP5.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This is a complaint filed against the opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs towards damages for supplying contaminated water.
2.) The case of the complainant in brief is that opposite party No. 4 is a multi national company engaged in the business of manufacture of soft drinks and pure drinking water operating through opposite parties 1 & 2 in India for which opposite party No. 3 is the authorised distributor. When they assured supply of safe and pure drinking water it has been purchasing the water supplied in 25 litres of pet bottles to its employees and customers. Earlier their employees fell sick, suffered throat infection due to consumption of the said water. While so on 6.7.2007, its employees had observed fungus besides a wooden piece of 4 to 5 inches, and some hazardous material in the sealed bottle. When complained opposite party No. 3 sent its agents who in turn examined, expressed their regrets and treated the matter in a causal manner and assured that they would be careful in future. On that they issued a legal notice on 19.7.2007 claiming compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs for which they did not give any reply. Therefore, they filed the complaint claiming Rs. 25 lakhs towards compensation for the serious health disorders suffered by them and costs.
3) Opposite Party No. 1 filed counter resisting the case. It denied each and every averment made against it alleging that they were false and baseless. However, it admitted that it had undertaken processing and packaging of drinking water under the brand name of ‘Kinley’ owned by opposite party No. 4. They have been producing the packaged drinking water under the most stringent quality norms and processes by employing multi barrier filtration system as mentioned in Annexure-A. It was in conformity with ISO 9001:2000 accredited by DNV certification and also the standards prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS ) vide IS 14543:2004.
When the complainant complained on 7.7.2007 it has sent its representative Mr. P. Bhargav Kashyap. By the time he went the bank was closed. Again he went on 9.7.2007. He noticed that the hologram of the jar was tampered with. He sought for copies of delivery challan, invoice and allow him to draw sample in order to find out the integrity of the product. However, the officers of the complainant did not allow him to take the sample. Again on 12.7.2007 the Chief Executive Officer visited the bank, requested to provide necessary bills, etc., however, the bank officials declined. After coming to know that the water jar which was supplied by opposite party No. 3 to the complainant belonged to batch No. 284 they got it verified and found that there was no complaint from any of the consumers. They had supplied 5000 jars of the same batch. The complainant was not entitled to complain as it was amalgamated with HDFC bank. The allegation that employees had fallen sick, suffered from infection etc. is false. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
4) Opposite Party No. 2 filed counter denying the allegations. It has almost adopted the averments made in the counter by opposite party No. 1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5) Opposite Party No. 3 filed a memo adopting the counter of Opposite Parties 1 & 2.
6) The complainant in proof of its case filed the affidavit evident of Sri E. Mallikarjuna Rao, Manager Legal of the complainant bank and got Exs. A1 to A11 marked. Refuting its evidence R1 filed the affidavit evidence of Sri Alok Mittal, Director and R2 filed the affidavit evidence of Sri Alik Pasha Shaik, Executive Legal and got Exs. B1 to B7 marked.
7) The points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the water supplied on 6.7.2007 was polluted and not according to the specifications?
2) Whether the employees of complainant had suffered serious health disorders and entitled to compensation?
3) If so, to what amount?
8) It is not in dispute that opposite party No. 4 is a multi national company engaged in the business of manufacture of soft drinks and pure drinking water operating through opposite parties 1 & 2 in India for which opposite party No. 3 is the authorised distributor. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has been purchasing the packaged drinking water supplied by the opposite parties in 25 litres of pet bottles.
9) The case of the complainant is that on 6.7.2007 in the water bottled supplied by the opposite parties they found fungus besides wooden piece and some other hazardous material in the sealed bottle. The opposite parties on receipt of a complaint they sent their representative, who in turn visited the premises. They allege that the staff of complainant did not allow him to take the sample in order to test or verify the purity of the product. They also alleged that details of the invoice or purchase bills were not shown.
10) Curiously, the complainant while admitting that representative of the opposite parties had come, however alleged in the affidavit evidence “ the opposite parties have simply expressed regrets and treated the matter in a casual manner and stated that they will take safeguards to prevent such hazardous material in future.” Despite such an apathy was shown by opposite parties, they did not protest or give any notice immediately. For the first time on 19.7.2007, they issued a notice claiming damages marking a copy to the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). In fact, BIS is also impleaded as proforma party for which they gave reply stating that “the matter
is under investigation”. It is not known as to what happened to their investigation. Later it filed the complaint. The fact remains that water bottle was never produced before this Commission in order to send it to an appropriate laboratory for analysis as required u/s. 13© of the Consumer Protection Act. It is incumbent upon the complainant to get the same tested in order to find out whether the product conforms to the standards prescribed by the various laws. Belatedly, during the course of arguments, the complainant brought the bottle on 8.9.2009 with a memo. The opposite parties all through contending that the seals were tampered. The complainant could not give any explanation as to why the water bottle was not produced in order to get it tested. This attitude of the complainant and particularly when they are defended by a legal officer an adverse inference could be drawn against their case. Either in the complaint or in the affidavit evidence they did not give the details of invoice/bill for 6.7.2007. This could have afforded the opposite parties to verify the purity of the product. The opposite parties, in fact, in their affidavit evidence asserted that from the notice issued by Bureau of Standards they could know that it relates to batch No. 284 Ex. B6. According to them more than 5000 jars were manufactured and were sold to 100 customers in the vicinity of the complainant between 5.7.2007 and 7.7.2007. It is not the case of the complainant that those customers had also complained. In order to prove the said fact the opposite parties filed Ex. B6. Apart from it, they have also filed Ex. B5, complainant’s feed back form prepared on the date of inspection wherein there was a categorical mention that “ We have found the hologram has been broken and customer refused to allow us to draw the sample to check the quality of the water.” This fact was reiterated by the opposite parties when notice was issued by the complainant. In fact, to the notice issued by the complainant they gave their remarks vide letter Dt. 13.11.2007 to the BIS mentioning that it conforms to the standards specified by various authorities.
11) The complainant alleged that earlier in the months of May, June and July, 2007 their staff members and clients had suffered health disorders having consumed the water supplied by the opposite parties. We may state that at no time such a complaint was made to the opposite parties. No notice was given. If really that were to be true, we do not think that the employees being officers in the complainant bank, would keep quiet without taking up the matter with the authorities. Obviously, in order to prove the said fact they filed a medical certificate Ex. . A3 Dt. 30.6.2007 and Ex. A4 prescription chit of the doctor Dt. 8.7.2007. Ex. A3 is prior to the date of purchase of disputed water bottle. In Ex. A4 there was no mention as to the exact disease of the patient suffering from. The complainant had filed the bills amounting to Rs. 68/- as against the claim of Rs. 25 lakhs towards compensation. It is not known why the complainant did not file the bill for the supply of water made on 6.7.2007 for which the complainant was making the complaint. In stead it has filed Ex. A2 bills relating to the water supply made from 26.4.2007 to 25.6.2007.
12) To sum up, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the water supplied by the opposite parties was unwholesome and infected with fungus and other hazardous material. It did not send the sample to analysis in order to know the purity or impurity of the water. On the other hand the opposite parties filed the evidence to show that the water manufactured on the said date was supplied to various customers who in turn did not complain. Since the complainant could not prove that the water supplied by the opposite parties was impure, the complainant was not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. It is unfortunate that the complainant is a bank unable to take steps to prove that the water supplied to its customers and employees was impure and imperfect. They ought not have resorted to this sort of litigation without substantiating the allegations levelled by them. It is irresponsibility on their part. There are no merits.
13) In the result the complaint is dismissed with nominal costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 05. 10. 2009.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Complainant: Opposite parties:
None None
Documents marked for complainant:
Ex. A1; Specific Power of Attorney Dt. 27.7.2006.
Ex. A2; Statement of supplies issued by O.P3
Ex. A3; Medical Certificate Dt. 30.6.2007 issued by Dr. C.D. Murthy
Ex. A4; Medical Bill and prescription.
Ex. A5; Lr. Dt. 4.7.2007 addressed by Mr. B. Swami Naidu to complainant.
Ex. A6; Lr. Dt. 2.7.2007addressed by A. Srinath to complainant bank.
Ex. A7; Legal notice Dt. 19.7.2007 issued by complainant to Ops.
Ex. A8; Postal acknowledgements.
Ex. A9; Reply notice Dt. 2.8.2007 issued by O.P. No. 5 to complainant
Counsel.
Ex. A10; Letter Dt. 18.8.2007 of complainant bank to O.P. No. 5
Ex. A11; Postal receipt.
Documents marked for Ops:
Ex. B1; Process flow chart of water in pet bottle and jars Dt. 7.1.2005.
Ex. B2; ISO 9001:2000 issued by DNV Certification B.V. the Netherlands.
Dt. 15. 6. 2006.
Ex. B3; Certification issued by DNV Certification B.V. the Netherlands.
Dt. 3.1.2005.
Ex. B4; Lr. Dt. 21.3.2002 issued by OP5 to OP1.
Ex. B5; Complaint Feed back from consumer/customer. Dt. 7.7.2007.
Ex. B6; List of customers to whom water was supplied.
Ex. B7; Report issued by BIS Dt. 29.1.2008.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) _________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 05. 10. 2009
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
