BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

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

Friday, the 16^th day of August, 2013

CC. No. 24 of 2012

Between:

Mohammad Moinuddin S/o Mohammad Ali,

Aged : 32 years, Occ: Auto Driver,

R/o Ausalpally village,

Mandal and District Medak.                                           …. Complainant

And

1. M/s Varun Automobiles, Auto Nagar,
2.  

2. The Administrative Officer,

VEELINE Industries,

R/o H.No. 8-3-316, Sapthagiri Colony,

Karim Nagar – 505 001.

3. M/s Himachal Beweries Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.7, Phase III, IDA, Pasha Mailaram,

Mandal Patancheru, Dist. Medak.

4. M/s Aquafine Mineral Water,

Kalabgur, Mandal Sangareddy,

District Medak.                                                         … Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 12.08.2013 in the presence of Sri P. Bal Reddy, Advocate for complainant, Sri P. Jaipal Reddy and & Associates, Advocate for opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 3 notice served but no representation hence set exparte and Opposite parties No. 2 and 4 were also set exparte despite substituted service of notices by paper publication and 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 G. Sreenivas Rao, Member)

                   This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs 3,00,000/- and award damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with costs and pass any other order as deemedfit by the Forum.

            The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased distilled water for his auto on 01.01.2011 from the opposite party No. 1. On the next day the complainant used half of the bottle and kept the remaining half in his house and he left for duty. During noon, the three year old son of the complainant by name ‘Riyaan’ consumed some quantity of the said bottle thinking that it was drinking water, thereby the boy fell unconscious and he was shifted to Dwaraka Nursing Home, Azaampur, Medak where the boy underwent treatment till 04.01.2011 as the complainant came to know after examination by the doctor that his child consumed acid instead of distilled water which led to burn injuries inside the stomach of the boy. The boy was given treatment till 14.01.2011 on the same day he started vomiting so the boy was shifted to KIMS, Hospital, Secunderabad, where endoscopy was taken and the doctors advised for surgery which costs upto 3,00,000/-. As the complainant is an auto driver unable to bear that much amount hence shifted his child to Government Niloufer Hospital at Hyderabad. The hospital conducted surgery on 22.01.2011 and discharged the boy on 04.02.2011. The complainant incurred huge amount for treatment and extra nourishment. The intestine of the boy was removed and one pipe was fixed, due to which the boy has been suffering frequently stomachache. After seven years one more operation is required for removal of inserted pipe. So the boy has not been digesting the food properly and passing heavy urine for every 15 minutes. The doctors advised to provide mineral water and liquid foods. The career of the boy is affected and one attendant is required throughout the life of the boy as such the complainant is not in a position to bear all this expenditure.

                   The complainant submits that the opposite party No. 1 was the supplier of distilled water, the opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer of distilled water and acid in the bottle of Kinley and Aquafine and the opposite parties No. 3 & 4 used to sell these bottles in open market. The boy consumed the distiller water thinking as drinking water but it was found to be acid. Later on, the complainant reported to the opposite party No. 1 who took it in easy way and informed that the opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer who is responsible for the said mistake so he (opposite party No. 1) is only a seller of the products made by opposite party No. 2. Subsequently the complainant also reported to opposite party No. 3 & 4 that the opposite party No. 2 is manufacturer distilled water and acid in the bottles and labels the name of opposite parties No. 3 & 4 and selling the same in the open market. So due to this illegal marketing the complainant’s son has been affected permanently to suffer throughout his life. The opposite parties are totally irresponsible and not feeling any sympathy for the human life. Which shows that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence prayed for suitable compensation, damages and costs.

2.            The opposite party No. 1 in his version denied all the averments of the complainant and also stated that the complainant had not purchased any distilled water on 01.01.2011 from him as alleged in the complaint. Finally he denied all allegations made by the complainant as false and baseless.

3.             The opposite parties No. 2 & 4 had not responded despite paper publication and opposite party No. 3 though notice served but remained silent. Hence these opposite parties were set exparte.

4.            The complainant adduced his evidence and got marked the exhibits from A1 to A4 and later on wished to submit (4) distilled bottles as MOs’ but failed to do so, despite eleven (11) adjournments. Even he did not submit his written or oral arguments though the Forum gave him ample opportunity for the same. The opposite party No. 1 just filed an affidavit without any counter & documentary evidence, he too did not advance any written/oral arguments.

5.               In such circumstances, the Forum has no other alternative, except to adjudicate the matter basing on the material available.

6.               Now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is able to prove deficiency in service against the opposite parties? If so, to what relief?

Point:

7.                The complainant is an auto driver who had purchased distilled water on 01.01.2011 from opposite party No. 1 for his auto and used half of the bottle on 02.01.2011 and kept the remaining half bottle at his house and he went away on his duty. He alleged that his three years old son consumed some quantity of the said bottle (distilled water) thought to be drinking water. The child fell unconscious, immediately he shifted his son to Dwaraka Nursing Home at Medak, where his son underwent treatment upto 04.01.2011, where the doctor detected that the boy consumed acid as such the stomach of the boy got affected with burns. The boy was treated till 14.01.2011, but again the boy started vomiting, so the parents shifted him to KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad where endoscopy was taken and the hospital authorities advised surgery which would cost upto 3.00 lakhs.

8.              As the complainant could not afford the private hospital expenses, so he shifted his boy to Government Niloufer Hospital, who conducted surgery on 22.01.2011 and discharged on 04.02.2011. The complainant purchased all the medicines and blood from outside the hospital, as such the complainant incurred huge amount for the treatment of his boy. The complainant also alleges that the intestine of the boy was removed and a pipe was fixed and the boy often complains about pain in the stomach. It seems, the doctor suggested that after (7) years again an operation has to be performed to remove the inserted pipe. The doctor advised to provide mineral water and liquid food to boy. The whole career of the boy was spoiled and one attendant in required all the time throughout the life of the boy. Thus the complainant is not in a position to bear all this inconvenience, mental agony and expenditure, so claims compensation from the opposite parties.  

9.           The opposite party No. 1 is the seller of the distilled water which is manufactured by opposite party No. 2 and marketed in the bottles of opposite parties No. 3 & 4, this is an illegal act for doing such unfair trade practice. The opposite parties No. 2 to 4 might be colluded as per the allegations of the complainant. Despite bringing to their notice, the opposite party No. 1 (shop keeper) shifted his responsibility to opposite party No. 2 (Manufacturer). The other opposite parties No. 3 & 4 even after knowing all about the case, no action had been taken against opposite parties No. 1 & 2, hence the case is before this Forum for redressal.

10.              In support of his claim, the complainant filed documentary evidence, the Xerox copy of the ‘letter head’ dated 01.01.2011 of opposite party No. 1 showing purchase of distilled water for Rs. 10/- with other items totalling Rs. 250/-, which is not marked as exhibit for want of copy of the receipt from opposite party No. 1. The exhibit A1 is the discharge summary dated. 04.1.2011 of Dwaraka Nursing Home, Medak, in which under the sub heading ‘clinical summary’ it is mentioned as accidental ingestion of battery acid mixed about 15-20 ml (H₂ SO₄) and advised endoscopy followed by exhibit A2 which is the prescription of medicines dated. 14.01.2011, given to the boy and Ex. A3 dt. 18.01.2011 is the report of the upper GI endoscopy (2 sheets) taken at KIMS, Secunderabad, in which it was advised surgery for CORROSIVE antral stricture and referred to Niloufer hospital for the same. The Ex.A4 is the discharge summary of Niloufer Hospital, Hyderabad which shows date of admission as 22.01.2011 and date of discharge as 04.02.2011.

11.              On serious examination of the above, the undisputed fact is the three year old boy / son of the complainant did consume battery acid as per the exhibit A1 and undergone surgery at Niloufer Hospital, Hyderabad as per the reference of KIMS hospital Secunderabad (Ex. A3 & A4). The complainant alleges that the boy consumed from the leftover bottle containing distilled water thinking it as drinking water which was purchased from opposite party No. 1. To substantiate this, he would have filed authentic receipt issued by the opposite party No. 1.

                   Now the question is whether the boy consumed distilled water or battery acid (H₂ SO₄) this issue is very crucial in this case and the complainant would have deposited either the half used distilled water bottle or other sealed bottles to enable the Forum to send to laboratory for analysis & report, to fix the onus on the opposite parties. However the Forum gave ample time to complainant, but he failed to deposit material objects (MOs) to prove his alleged case of deficiency in service.

                   From the above conclusion, the complaint stands dismissed and the point is answered accordingly.

12.              In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

                   Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 16^th day of August, 2013.

                     Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

                    MALE MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                 WITNESS EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

                            Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

                    MALE MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT 

Copy to

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.parties
3. Spare copy