BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:162 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 05.06.2015.
Date of Decision: 05.12.2019.
Jar Parkash son of Shri Gopi Ram resident of old Patwarkhana Chuhar Singh ki Bazari Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s SABMiller India Lted. (Formerly SKOL Breweries Lted.) having its office at Jalahalli Road Camp, Yeshwantpur, Bangalore-560022, Karnataka, India & Its Registered Office at Unit No.301-302, IIIrd Floor, Dynasty Business Park, B Wing, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059 on behalf of Units-Haryana Breweries, Murthal, Sonipat (Haryana) 131039 through its authorized signatory.
- Sohan Lal Singla Atela English Wine Shop, Main Chowk, Atela, Tehisl Dadri District Bhiwani (GIVEN UP) ON 17.01.2017.
...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Present: Mrs.Kusum Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Naresh Katiwal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Op No.2 given up.
ORDER:-
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased two sealed packed bottles of beer brand Foster’s Extra having batch No.IFPO 50199 on 29.12.2013 from opposite party No.2. The complainant consumed one beer of bottle and other remained intact but due to consumption of beer, the complainant felt pain in his stomach and started vomiting and also started diarrhea. The intact bottle was checked by the complainant and found presence of pouch floating inside the beer bottle. The date of manufacturing was mentioned as 27.05.2012 with expiry date as 27.12.2012 but the opposite parties have supplied the beer after the expiry date despite the fact that the opposite party No.1 claimed that each and every packed by the company go through the quality check before supplied to the market or distributor but floating pouch in the beer bottle shows that no high standard of hygiene has been maintained as claimed by opposite parties. The complainant requested the opposite parties for compensation but when all fell on deaf ears, he got served legal notice upon the opposite parties but it also did not yield much as the opposite party No.1 had sent false and evasive reply to the notice on 17.03.2015. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on their part.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the present complaint has been filed in order to harass the answering opposite party and even no compliance as per provisions of 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been made. It has been further submitted that the Foster beer is made with state of the art technology and bottled and packed in hygienic conditions. Further, each product undergoes stringent quality control and unless each product meets with the prescribed quality standard, the product is not cleared for sale by the quality control systems put in place by the opposite party at the manufacturing unit. The complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer as prescribed under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Opposite party No.2 has been given up by the learned counsel for complainant vide statement dated 17.01.2017 being unnecessary.
3. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence. The complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure C1 and Annexure C2 and closed the evidence on 04.07.2017 whereas the opposite party has tendered in evidence document Annexure R1 and closed the evidence on 07.09.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
5.
Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the Foster’s extra premium beer purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 manufactured by Op No.1 were having some contraband as there was pouch floated in the bottle. After consuming of beer bottle, he felt ill and remained under treatment for some days and also spent money on the treatment. It was further argued that it all happened due to food poisoning on account of consumption of some unhygienic spurious and inferior quality of beer.
6. Per contra, learned counsels for the appearing opposite party has argued that the present complaint has been filed just to harass and defame the brand name as well as to extract money from it and the complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer. Moreso, the product goes under various quality checks before releasing the same to the market for consumption. It has been further argued that there is no compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, therefore, it cannot be said that beer were having some contraband in it. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
7. Arguments advanced by counsels for the parties have been duly considered, evidence led by the parties and documents on the record of the file have also been perused. In the present complaint, the complainant in para No.5 has taken specific plea that after consumption of beer allegedly purchased from opposite party No.2 he fell ill and suffered from stomach pain, vomiting and diarrhea and in support of this he has placed on file his duly sworn affidavit on the case file. Moreover, during the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant has also produced original medical/prescription slip showing that he had fallen ill and got treatment from Aanchal Maternity & Nursing Home, Bhiwani after consumption of bottle of beer. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 neither in the reply nor in the affidavit has specifically denied the fact about falling ill of the complainant. The complainant has placed on file medical certificate issued by the competent doctor, therefore, we can easily conclude that the complainant had fallen ill after consuming the beer allegedly purchased from opposite party No.2. Further perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has specifically mentioned the batch No. IFP05 50199, therefore, it was open for the opposite party No.1 to rebut the pleadings of the complainant after putting the test report of bottles of beer of same batch tested from the authorized laboratory at the time of releasing the lot of beer before this Forum. Undisputedly, these products are in high demand and on a number of occasions the products are found to be spurious which may not be the act of manufacturing company but in the present case when the complainant had specifically provided the batch number with date of manufacturing in the complaint, therefore, the opposite party No.1 had opportunity to rebut the pleadings of the complainant by producing authentic evidence/report but it has not been done, therefore, the plea of non compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby rejected.
8. In view of the discussion made above we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove his case against the opposite party No.1, therefore, present complaint is allowed. Since, no medical bill has been produced by the complainant to show that how much amount he had spent on his treatment, therefore, the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as cost of treatment, for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses in lump sum. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 05.12.2019.
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
Present: Mrs.Kusum Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Naresh Katiwal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Op No.2 given up.
Arguments completed. Vide our separate order of even dated, present complaint is hereby allowed. File be consigned to the record room.
Member President, DCDRF, Bhiwani/05.12.2019
