BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM  (Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986)  MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
 

 PRESENT: Sri Y. Aravinda Reddy, Spl Judge for SCs & STs (POA)                 Act cum – V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge / FAC President

               Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

 Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR) Male Member

Friday, the 15^th day of June, 2012

C.C. No. 03 of 2012

Between:

Sri Miriyal Vittal S/o Chandraiah,

Aged: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Shivampet village,

Mandal Pulkal, District Medak.

                                                                                                …..Complainant

And

1)              M/s Santosh Wines,

Shivampet village,

Mandal Pulkal,

District Medak.

2)              M/s United Breweries Ltd.,

Mallepally village, Kondapur Mandal,

Medak District, Regd. Office: UB Towers Ubility,

24 Vittal Mally Road, Banglore – 560 001.          

                                                                                   ...Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 08.05.2012 in the presence of Sri M. Giridhar, Advocate, Opposite parties called absent and  heard the arguments of complainant, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Member)

1.                          This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging that he purchased a beer bottle – (King Fisher Strong Beer) from the opposite party No. 1 on 17.08.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 85/- vide batch No. 21 B1, dated 11.04.2011. The opposite party No. 1 also issued a receipt for purchasing the above mentioned bottle.

On returning home the complainant while trying to open the bottle noticed some insect and foreign material in the bottle. He immediately approached opposite party No. 1 but was told that it was the fault of opposite party No. 2.

He further states that due diligent and care that be exercised by opposite party No. 2 during the manufacturing of the product. They have a reputation to maintain and because of this failure to supervise the product released in the market may pose grave dangers to the consumer. If the insect is poisonous one and had he consumed the contents of the bottle, his life would he in danger.

Notice was issued to opposite party No. 2 on 26.08.2011 and was also received by them. Opposite party No. 2 chose not to make any response. He further states that he has suffered mental shock and agony as his life would have been in danger in the event of drinking the contents of the said bottle.

Hence the present complaint with a prayer – seeking a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental agony. Had the opposite parties settled the matter, he could have saved the cost of litigation. He is entitled to Rs. 85/- (cost of beer) and Rs. 20,000/-towards damages.

The complainant let his evidence in the forum of his affidavit reiterating the fact stated in his complaint and exhibited documents A1 to A5 and also deposited sealed beer bottle (Ex..A5) in the forum.

The opposite parties have chosen to remain expartee. Although notice was served on opposite party No. 2 on 26.08.2011, they have not responded.

                The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and if so is the complainant entitled to any relief?

Point:

Ex.A1 is the cash bill issued by Santhosh Wines  (opposite party No. 1) to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 85/- paid for purchase of three bottles of King Fisher Strong beer on 17.08.2011.

Ex.A5 is a King Fisher (Brand) Strong beer bottle, in a proper sealed condition. On close inspection, a lot of dust is visible to the naked eye. Also thread like pieces are visible. A company of repute should take maximum care of their quality and check every bottle before dispatch. The shop owner also shares a responsibility in informing the company if he is handling substandard items. He is getting these bottles often and should inform the company.

                     Undoubtedly opposite party No. 2 has to bear utmost responsibility during the manufacturing and bottling process and due care and caution must be exercised while bottling. A company with a reputation and extensive goodwill in the market cannot afford to be negligent.

                   In this forum a number of cases have been filed where the beer / liquor has been purchased from opposite party No. 1. But in this case the complainant has only issued notice to opposite party No. 2 and not to opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 must check their dispatch before sending it from the factory premises. They must pay special attention to the dispatch to opposite party No. 1 as the numbers of complaints are many. In view of the above discussion we allow the complaint.

       In the result the complaint is allowed to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 85/- (cost of beer bottle) and Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and costs. Time for compliance: one month.

       Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this   15^th day of June, 2012.                                     

             Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                  Sd/-   

   FAC PRESIDENT                LADY MEMBER               MALE MEMER

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

-NIL-                                                                               -NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

            Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                       Sd/-        

    FAC PRESIDENT                  LADY MEMBER         MALEMEMER

Copy to

1)     The Complainant

2)     The Opposite parties

3)     Spare copy