BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NUH
Consumer complaint No. 14 of 2016
Date of institution: 26.07.2016
Date of decision: 1.3.2018
Irshad son of Aash Mohmad aged 24 years resident of village Sunari, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat.
…Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Varun Beverages Pvt. Ltd. village Tejpur Ujina Tehsil Nuh District Mewat-122107 through its proprietor.
- Manager, Pepsico India 3B, DLF Corporate park, S Block, Qutub Enclave, Phase III Gurgaon-122002 Haryana India.
- Tanwar Foji Pepsi Distributor resident of village Bighawali Tehsil Hathin, District Palwal.
..Opposite parties
Complainant under Section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
BEFORE:- Sh. Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
Smt. Urmil Beniwal, Member
Smt. Keeran Bala, Member
Present:- Sh. Nassem Ahmad, Adv. for the complainant.
None for the opposite party no. 1.
Opposite party no. 2 and 3 already ex parte.
ORDER:- (R.S. Dahiya, President)
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one cold drink bottle of the brand of mountain dew from the shopkeeper namely Deen Mohmad on 23.5.2016 for Rs. 12/-. The complainant was shocked to see dust and some unidentified object in the sealed bottle and thus he did not unscrew the cap of the bottle. The complainant contacted the shopkeeper immediately in this regard and also gave the intimation to the supplier for this negligence, but the supplier did not take any action in this case. A legal notice dated 3.6.2016 was issued to the opposite party but all in vain. The act of the opposite parties clearly shows the deficient service towards the complainant for which the complainant is legally entitled for compensation. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint may be allowed and the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation for mental torture and agony caused to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed the written statement contending that the complaint is false, frivolous and baseless and has been filed only to harass and to extract exorbitant amount from the answering opposite party. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has not having the bill and in the absence of bill/invoice/cash memo, it cannot be concluded that the complainant has purchased the alleged bottle against any sale consideration and hence the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is contended that the alleged bottle should have been sent to the specialized/competent laboratory for testing, which is mandatory to prove of any negligence during the manufacturing process or has been inserted subsequently after tempering the seal of the bottle. But the opposite party has not sent the bottle to the specialized/competent laboratory. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. All other allegations have been leveled by the complainant upon the answering opposite party, is denied. Dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs is prayed for.
3. Notices were issued against the opposite party no. 2 and 3 but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and 3, so the opposite party no. 2 and 3 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 31.8.2016.
4. In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. CW1/A, Legal notice dated 3.6.2016 Ex. C1, postal receipt Ex. C2 and copies of photographs Annexure –1 to Annexure -4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party no. 1 has produced the affidavit Pradeep Kumar, Deputy Manager Ex. RW1, authority letter Ex. ORW1/A, copy of details of some FIRs Ex. ORW1/B, copy of order dated 14.1.2016 Ex. ORW1/C, copy of letter dated 20.6.2016 Ex. ORW1/D and copy of postal receipt Ex. ORW1/E and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the documents placed on file. Regarding the objection of the opposite party for not producing the bill/invoice or cash memo of cold drink bottle in question, it is a common practice that the cold drink shop generally do not issue any bill or cash memo to the customer but on the cap of the bottle in question the name of the manufacturer i.e. opposite party no. 1 is clearly written and it amply proved that the bottle in question was manufactured by opposite party No. 1.
6. Regarding the objection for lab report not submitted by the complainant. The dust and unidentified object can be seen by the naked eyes. So, in our opinion there is no need to send the bottle to laboratory to identify the dust and the unidentified object.
7. As per discussion above we find that there was a dust and some part of unidentified material in the bottle and there was a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. As a result, the complaint is allowed and we award Rs. 10000/- (ten thousand rupees only) as compensation to the complainant against opposite party No. 1. Opposite party no. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 5500/- as litigation costs to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced on 1.3.2018
President
Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum/Nuh (Mewat)
1.3.2018
Note:- This judgment consisting three pages, each pages has been checked carefully, and
signed by us.
President
Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum/Nuh (Mewat)
1.3.2018
