DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 207 of 20-08-2009<br /> Decided on : 07-01-2010 <br /> <br /> Suresh Kumar aged about 45 years S/o Sh. Bhan Chand R/o Village Lelewala, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda now C/o Ashok Pardhan H. No. 6033, Mata Rani Street, Near Jain Sabha, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Village Nabipur, District Fatehgarh Sahib 140406, through its M.D./Chairman<br /> 2.M/s. Happy Namkin and Dairy Fruits, Near Fire Brigade Chowk, Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Suresh Kumar, complainant in person. <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. K.C. Bhanota, Counsel for opposite party No. 1. Sh. Darshan Kumar, opposite party No. 2 in person. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 03-07-09, he purchased two Limca Bottles manufactured by opposite party No. 1, from opposite party No. 2. Out of two bottles, he consumed one bottle which caused trouble in his abdomen. He checked the other sealed bottle and found some foreign matter (kachra) in it. He approached opposite party No. 1 who apprised him that being supplier of the bottle, he is not responsible, so he may contact opposite party No. 1 who is manufacturer of the bottle. He asserts that supply of such infected bottles are not only injurious to the health of the complainant but also havoc with the health of general public. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- and to supply correct bottles to the general public.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not 'consumer'; complaint is liable to be rejected and dismissed for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties; relief claimed by the complainant in the complaint is not maintainable; complaint is baseless and abuse of process of law and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.<br /> On merits, it has been submitted that opposite party No. 1 is the franchise of the Coca Cola company who is a foreign company and manufacturing the essence of cold drinks. The opposite party No. 1 is only the bottler of coca cola. There are different bottles of coca-cola to whom the franchise has been given by the parent company of coca-cola. These different bottlers have different territorial jurisdiction and have their own dealers. The answering opposite party is one of the bottler of the parent company of coca-cola and having its bottling plant at Nabipur, District Fatehgarh Sahib, having its jurisdiction and own distributors in Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and some parts of Punjab.<br /> It has been further submitted that a company has a system of production with world class machinery. The bottling operation takes place in most hygienic and dust free atmosphere. There is not even the remotest possibility of dust entering in the bottle. The company has a system of systematic and stringent quality checks. It has been specifically submitted that there might be possibility of fake or duplicate bottle.<br /> 3. The opposite party No. 2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant is not consumer; complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and the complainant has failed to mention the details of the bottle. On merits, it has been pleaded that complainant has never purchased any Limca Bottle from the shop of answering opposite party on 03-07-2009. It has been specifically denied that complainant has contacted opposite party No. 2 at any point of time. It has been further submitted that opposite party No. 2 has no dealing with opposite party No. 1 and never purchased any bottle of Soft Drink from opposite party No. 1 or its distributor. The whole story is made-up story just to harass and extract the money from the opposite parties.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced on record his two affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2, photograph of disputed Limca bottle Ex. C-3, DVD Ex. C-4 and Disputed Limca bottle Ex. C-5.<br /> 5. In rebuttal, opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. S K Grover, General Manager and constituted attorney Ex. R-1 and photocopy of Franchise distributors contact numbers 2006.<br /> 6. We have heard complainant and opposite party No. 2 in person and counsel for opposite party No. 1and have also gone through the record and written submissions of the parties.<br /> 7. Recapitulation of the facts of the case would show that complainant has not produced any evidence i.e. any bill or any other supporting document to show that he has purchased Limca Bottle in question on 03-07-2009 from opposite party No. 2. He has also not produced any evidence in proof of any link of the purchase of impugned bottle of Limca through any authorised sale network of opposite party No. 1.<br /> Learned counsel for Opposite party No. 1 submitted that opposite party No. 1 is the franchise of company coca-cola who is the foreign company and manufacturing the essence of the cold drinks. There are different bottlers of the said company to whom the franchise has been given by the parent company. These bottlers have different territorial jurisdiction and have their own distributors. The opposite party No. 1 is one of the bottlers of parent company and having its bottling plant at Nabipur, District Fatehgarh Sahib, having its jurisdiction and own distributors in Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and some part of Punjab. He also produced before this Forum Distributor's List 2008-2009 (Annexure'A').<br /> 8. The perusal of Distributor's List 2008-2009 -Annexure 'A' reveals that District Bathinda is not included as distributor of opposite party No. 1. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that M/s. Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Village Nabipur, District Fatehgarh Sahib, opposite party No. 1 has any distributorship in the area of Bathinda or the surrounding areas of Bathinda.<br /> 9. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence brought on record by the parties, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove that he is a consumer of opposite party No. 2. Thus, he has no locus standi to file this complaint. The complaint deserves dismissal against opposite party No. 1 on the point of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 07-01-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member<br /> *ik