BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

                                        C.C.No.18/2014

Dated this the 17^th day of April 2018

(Date of Institution: 13.02.2014)

Mohamed Annas, son of Mohamed Mustafa

No.14, Yenam Vengadachala Pillai Street

Puducherry-605 001.

                                                ….     Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd.,

   Rep. by its Authorised Signatory   

   Thiruvallur High Road             

   Madhura Nemam Village,                

   Vellavedu, Thiruvallur District – 602 107

   Tamil Nadu.                   

2. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,      

    HCCB Pvt. Ltd., rep. by Authorised Signatory

    R.S. No.21, Kurumbapet, Vazhudavur road,

    (Near Ponlait Milk Factory)

    Puducherry.

3. M/s Green City Departmental Store

    Rep. by its Authorised signatory      

   No.81, Aurobindo Street, Puducherry – 605 001.

                                       ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

THIRU.V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

MEMBER  

Tmt. D. KAVITHA, B.A., LL.B.,      

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  Thiru.M. Lakshmi Narasimhan,

     Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:     :  For OP1 and 2: Rajesh Krishna

                                                                For OP3 – Ex parte (Thiru N.

   Kaliyamoorthyu, Advocate was on record)

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

            This Consumer Complaint  was remanded by the Hon'ble State Commission, Puducherry for fresh disposal as per order passed in F.A. No.2 / 2015 and F.A. No. 9 / 2016  dated 08.12.2016 filed by the Complainant / Appellant and Opposite Parties 1 and 2 / Appellants against the order of the Consumer Complaint in C.C. No.18/2014 by this Forum by order dated 03.12.2014.

2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct:

1. The opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.30/- being the cost of the 400ml Coca Cola bottle.
2. The opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only) to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony and physical hardship suffered by him due to the utter negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties under section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and
3. The opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards the cost under section 14(10(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The first opposite party is the manufacturer of Coca Cola soft cool drinks and the second part is the distributor of the Coca Cola products in Puducherry region.  The complainant has purchased two bottles of 400 ml. Coca Cola drinks on 04.11.2013 alongwith some other items from the third opposite party.   The Coca Cola soft drinks purchased by the complainant with Batch No.BN446NE contained the manufacturing date mentioned as 11.09.2013 and time 13.54hours.  The complainant has consumed one bottle of Coca Cola around 08.00 p.m. on 05.11.2013 and immediately after an hour, he has vomited and also has passed loose motions.  Since the same condition has continued, he rushed to Indira Gandhi Government General Hospital and Post Graduate Institute, Puducherry on the same day around 09.00 p.m. and got first aid treatment.  Thereafter, the complainant has returned home.  But, suddenly he has again vomited and also passed loose motions twice. Then, the complainant has immediately rushed to the New Medical Centre, Puducherry for treatment at 01.00 a.m. on the next day i.e. 06.11.2013 and got treatment. During the whole night he suffered a lot.  On the next day morning, the complainant has found some foreign elements in the other bottle of coca cola which he had purchased from third opposite party.  The first opposite party is a multi national company with high reputation, but due to the carelessness and negligence in manufacturing and distributing unfit soft drink to the general public, the first opposite party has made the complainant to suffer both mentally and physically.  The complainant has sent an advocate notice dated 11.11.2013 and the said notice was acknowledged by the opposite parties on 14.11.2013.  But, however, they have not sent any reply and also not come forward to comply with the notice.  Hence, this complaint.

          4. The OP3 remained absent and set ex parte.

          5. The Reply Version filed by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 briefly discloses the following:

The first opposite party is the manufacturer of Coca Cola Soft cool drinks and the second opposite party is the distributor of the Coca Cola products in Puducherry region.  The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are not aware that on 04.11.2013, the complainant has purchased two bottles of 400ml. Coca Cola drinks along with some other items in the store detailed as third opposite party and also not aware that the complainant has consumed one bottle of Coca Cola around 08.00 p.m. on 05.11.2012 and immediately after an hour, he has vomited and also has passed loose motions.  It is false  to state that since the alleged condition has continued, the complainant has rushed to the Indira Gandhi Government General Hospital and Post Graduate Institute, Puducherry on the same day around 09.00 p.m. and got first aid treatment and returned home and again vomited and also passed loose motions twice and he immediately rushed to the New Medical Centre, Puducherry for treatment at 01.00 a.m. on the next day i.e., on 06.11.2013 and got treatment and during the whole of that night he suffered a lot and on the next day morning he has found some foreign elements in the other bottle of Coca Cola which he had purchased form from the third opposite party and the same was manufactured by the first opposite party and distributed by second opposite party.  The first opposite party is a multinational company with high reputation among the people, whereas it is absolutely false to state that due to the carelessness and negligence in manufacturing and distributing unfit soft drink to the general public, the first opposite party has made the complainant to suffer both mentally and physically are created out of sick imagination of the complainant.  It is absolutely false to state that the complainant has suffered a lot both mentally and physically and it is further false to state that the alleged negligent act of the opposite parties is a continuous one are all created only for the purpose of filing this vexatious complaint.  The opposite parties No.1 and 2 have verified the Material object i.e.  Coco cola bottle 400ml after seeking permission of this Hon’ble District Forum and found that the Material object i.e coca cola 400ml soft drinks with batch No.BN446NE, alleged to be manufactured on 11.09.2013, at 13.54 hours is not in sealed condition as stated by the complainant.  The brown colour liquid was found in the coca cola 400ml. soft drinks bottle is not the coca cola manufactured by the opposite party No.1.  The complainant has not purchased the alleged coca cola 400ml bottle hence he is not a consumer.  The opposite party No.1 is a Multi National company having very high reputation took utmost care for manufacturing and bottling coca cola.  The complainant who has not purchased the alleged Material object i.e.,  coca cola 400ml soft drinks and who is not at all a consumer has filed this vexatious complaint only with ulterior motive of blackmailing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 claiming an exaggerated amount with false case.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.       On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as CW.1, marked Exs.C1 to C8 and one 400ml, Coco Cola bottle as MO.1.  Thiru.G.O.Upadhyaya, Senior Public Analyst has been examined as CW.2 and marked Ex.C9 through him.

7.  Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer to OPs
2. Whether the Coca-Cola cool 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

8. Point No.1:

          The opposite parties 1 and 2 stated in their reply version that the complainant has not purchased Coca Cola and hence, he is not a consumer.  But, on perusal of Ex.C1, it is found that the complainant purchased two Coca-Cola 400 ml Pet bottles for Rs.29.50 for his consumption from OP.3 on 04.11.2013 and it was duly manufactured by OP 1 and distributed by OP.2 and the above documentary evidence itself shows that the OP1 and 2's contention does not hold good and this Forum holds that the complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties.

9. Point No.2:

          We have perused the complaint, Exs.C1 to C9 and evidence adduced by CW.1 and CW.2.  The third opposite party was duly served but called absent and set exparte.  The complainant submitted that he has purchased two Coca-Cola 400 ml. pet bottles for his consumption from OP.3 vide Ex.C1 and it was duly manufactured by OP 1 and distributed by OP.2 on 04.11.2013.  The complainant further submitted that he has consumed one of the Coca-Cola bottle on 05.11.2013 and immediately after an hour he had vomiting and loose motion.  The complainant rushed to Indira Gandhi Government General Hospital and Post Graduate Institute, Puducherry by 09.00 p.m. and got first aid treatment and returned home.  Again the complainant had vomiting and loose motion on the next day i.e. 06.11.2003 by 01.00 a.m. and admitted in the New Medical Centre, Puducherry as in patient for treatment.  The complainant filed Exs.C2 and C3 for the same.

10.     The complainant further submitted that on the next day morning he has found some foreign element in the other unopened Coca-cola bottle.  The complainant sent notice dated 11.11.2013 vide Ex.C8 to the opposite parties.  The same was acknowledged by the opposite parties vide Exs.C5 to C7.   The complainant marked the unopened Coca-Cola bottle as MO.1. 

          11.  On the otherhand, the opposite parties 1 and 2 pleaded that they are not aware of the purchase of MO1 from OP3 and about consumption of one bottle of coca cola on 5.11.2013 by complainant.  Further, the opposite parties  submitted that they are multinational company having high reputation among the people, and alleged that  the unsealed MO1 containing brown colour liquid is not manufactured by them. 

          12.  During filing of this complaint, the coca cola bottle MO1 was in sealed condition and this Forum sent the same to the Department of Food and Drugs Testing, Government of Puducherry for analysis.  The Expert filed a report Ex.C9 dated 05.09.2014 on MO1 stating that Brown coloured liquid containing spongy foreign substance. Hence the sample is unfit for analysis.  Further stated that according to Food and Safety Act, if the soft drink contains any foreign element it is unfit for human consumption

13. Further, on perusal of Ex.C2 Casualty slip, the complainant took treatment in the General Hospital, Pondicherry on 05.11.2013 for Acute abdomen pain and on the next day i.e. on 06.11.2013 for loose stools and the same is established by Ex.C3.  Hence, this Forum could presume that due to the alleged consumption of  coca cola, the complainant sustained health disorder for which, he took treatment in the General Hospital, Pondicherry and New Medical Centre, Puducherry.  Further, no witness was examined and no evidence was placed on the side of OPs 1 and 2 to prove that MO1 the 400 ml. soft drinks bottle is not manufactured by the first opposite party as stated in their reply versions.  Hence, the plea taken by the OPs 1 and 2 are not sustainable.  This Forum rely upon the Expert Report the Ex.X1 that the MO1 is unfit for human consumption.

14.     From the above discussion and material on the record, it is clear that the OPs indulged in unfair trade practice and sold the defective goods, hazardous to the human life and therefore, the complainant is entitled for return of the cost of coca cola and compensation  for the loss, injuries and mental agony sustained by him  and the opposite parties are liable to pay the same. 

15. Point No.3:

          In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and

1. The third  opposite party is hereby directed to return a sum of Rs.30/- being the cost of Coca Cola 400 ml. purchased by the complainant;
2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 
3. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

The MO1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Dated at Pondicherry on this the 17^th  day of  April  2018.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS WITNESS:  

CW.1             13.08.2014                Mohamed Annas

CW2               14.11.2014                G.L. Upadhyaya

OPPOSITE PARTIES’ WITNESS:  Nil

 COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:    Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:

MO.1              400 ml. Coca Cola Cool Drink bottle

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER