BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
PRESENT: SRI P.V.SUBRAHMANYAM, B.A,B.L., PRESIDENT.
SMT U.SUNITA, M.A., LADY MEMBER.
SRI MEKALA NARSIMHAREDDY, M.A,LL.B.,P.G.D.C.P.L
MALE MEMBER.
Friday the 16th day of January, 2009
CC.NO.41/2008
Between:
Muthyala Sai Prasad S/o M. Srihari
Aged: 31 years, Occ: Employee
R/o H.No. 6-2-109, Shivaji Nagar,
Sangareddy town, Dist. Medak.
… complainant.
And
1. M/s Vinayaka Wines
Jogipet town, Dist. Medak
2. The Manager, United Millennium Breweries Limited,
Bantupally village, Mandal Ranastalam,
Post : J.R.puram, Dist. Srikakulam, 532 407- A.P.
… Opposite parties.
This case came up for final hearing before us on 06.01.2009 in the presence of Sri. C. Laxminarsimha Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 being absent, upon hearing the arguments of complainant’s advocate, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following.
O R D E R
( Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
1). The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct opposite party Nos. 1& 2 to pay cost of bear bottles, compensation and damages. The averments complaint in brief are as follows:
2). The complainant is a resident of Sangareddy. On 19-5-2008 he went to Jogipet to meet his friend Raghunath Reddy and he along with his friend went to
-2-
the shop of opposite party NO. 1 on the same day and purchased six beer bottles of King Fisher brand for Rs.360/-, under a receipt and used five out of them and found a Gutka packet in the sixth bottle, therefore the seal of that bottle was not opened . On seeing the same the complainant approached opposite party No. 1 and informed the same. Opposite party No. 1 took the matter casually and said that he was not responsible for the mistake and he was simply selling the same and opposite party No. 2 who is the manufacturer is responsible. Due to the illegal act of the opposite parties, health of human beings may spoil. That beer bottle was manufactured by opposite party No. 2 on 21.1.2008 with batch no. 522 measuring 650 ml. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated. 9.06.2008 to the opposite parties which was received by them. There is no response. This shows deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is facing lot of difficulties and suffered much mental pain and agony. The opposite parties are therefore liable to pay to the complainant Rs. 360/- towards the amount lost by him in purchasing the beer bottles with interest at 18 % p.a., Rs. 15,000/- towards exemplary damages, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as damages. Hence the complaint.
3). Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 received notices, however remained absent and allowed the matter to proceed exparte against them.
4). Complainant filed his evidence affidavit to prove the contents of the complaint and marked Ex. A1 & A2 documents and M.O.1. material object (beer bottle containing gutka packet). A memo is filed by his counsel to consider the evidence affidavit as written arguments. His oral arguments are heard. Perused the record.
5). The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the damages and compensation prayed for?
6). Point:
The complaint’s case is that on 19.5.2008 he purchased six beer bottles from opposite party No. 1 under Ex. A1 receipt for Rs. 360/- at the rate of Rs. 60/- per bottle and found a Gutka packet in one of the bottles, therefore the seal of it was not opened and he approached opposite party No. 1 and informed the same but he has taken the matter lightly and thrown the burden on opposite
-3-
party No. 2 stating that opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer and therefore he is responsible and opposite party No. 1 is only a seller. It is the further case of the complainant that he then got Ex. A2 notice issued to opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and they did not give any response. The sealed beer bottle containing Gutka packet is marked as M.O.1.
7). Ex. A1 receipt of opposite party No. 1 is dated. 19.5.08 and it stands in the name of the complainant. It was issued for purchase of six beer bottles of King fisher brand for Rs. 360/- at the rate of Rs. 60/- per bottle. Though the contents of Ex. A1 receipt are in support of the contentions of the complainant, it does not contain batch number of the beer bottles purchased by the complainant. Even though Ex. A2 notice contains the batch number, there is no evidence to show that the said notice was sent to the opposite parties, that too by registered post, as mentioned therein and that it was received by the opposite parties. Neither the postal registration receipt nor postal acknowledgements filed to prove that the notice covered by Ex. A2 was sent by registered post and that it was received by the opposite parties. However as the complainant has stated in the complaint all the facts which are mentioned in Ex. A2 notice and as the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 received notice in this case and kept quite without entering their appearance either to admit or to deny the contents of the complaint and as the complaint filed his evidence affidavit to prove the contents of the complaint, it is deemed that the complainant has proved his case and the opposite parties remained absent as there is nothing for them to deny or defend. It is therefore held that the complainant has proved his case.
8). As M.O.1 contains a packet which contains the letters “SIMLA” and as the complaint stated that it is a gutka packet and as there is no contra evidence, certainly the complaint must have shocked by a look at the gutka packet in the beer bottle. It is not known whether the contents of the said gutka packet are leaked in to the beer bottle or not. If they are leaked it is injurious to health of human beings. This circumstance proves negligence on the part of the manufacture who is opposite party No. 2 and also on the part of opposite party No. 1 who sold such beer bottle. M.O.1 must be said to be a defective goods and hence both the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to any damages as he has not used the beer contained in M.O.1 bottle. In the circumstances it is held that the complaint is entitled to a cost of M.O.1 beer bottle and to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and
-4-
to costs of this litigation. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
9). In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and RS. 2,000/- towards costs of the litigation and also pay a sum of Rs. 60/- towards cost of M.O.1 beer bottle. The liability of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is joint and several. One month time is granted for payment.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 16th day of January, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Lady Member Male Member
APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE
For the Complainant: - For the Opposite parties:-
-Nil- -Nil-
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the Complainant: - For the opposite parties :-
Ex. A1/dt.19.5.08 – Cash Memo for purchase
of Six beer bottles by the
complainant
Ex. A2/dt. 09.06.2008 – Legal Notice issued by the
Complainant’s advocate to the
Opposite parties.
-5-
MATERIAL OBJECTS
For the Complainant: - For the opposite parties :-
M.O.1. – Beer Bottle of KingFisher Brand -Nil-
650 ml containing batch No. 522
and date of manufacture as 21.01.08.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Copy to
1) the Complainant copy delivered to the complainant/
2) The Opp.parties Opp.Parties On _________
3) spare copy
Dis.No. /2009, dt.
