Case No. 158/2010   

IN THE MATTER OF

Yaswant Raizada S/o Mr. Nagesh Chandra R/o Mo. Guryai, Post. Harduaganj,  Aligarh

                                           V/s

1. M/s Brindavan Agro Industries Ltd. Post Ruheri Distt. Hathras through its Manager
2. Coca Cola India (North) Enkay Tower-5 Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon through its Manager
3. M/s Prakash Sweet, Jawahar Chowk, Post Harduaganj Aligarh through its Proprietor
1171521.  

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs:-

1. The op be directed to pay compensation Rs.100000 for providing adulterated cold drink causing risk of life of the complainant.
2. The Op be directed Rs.100000 for causing mental agony
3. Cost of the compliant Rs.2500.

1. Complainant has stated that on 5.8.2009 he purchased a bottele of Thumbs Up 300 ml bearing batch no. BN969A from Prakash Sweets, Hurdaganj for some guests. It was a product of Coco Cola. When the bottle was presented for guests a gutka (Toboco pouch) was found floating inside it. It created a mental setback in the host and guests as well. Complainant took the bottle to retailer to lodge the complaint and served a notice dated 3.3.2010 on manager of Coco Cola India, North Gurgram. On 10.3.2010 complainant received a call from the manufacturer’s agent confirming the receiving of  letter. On 18.3.2010 agent of the company called the complainant to meet him. After the incident complainant was mentally shocked.                        

2. OP no.1 stated in WS that the op has a plant of international status and nothing could be passed inside the bottle. No manufacturing date of the cold drink was made clear. It is also stated that the duplicate Thumbs up bottle are also found in the local market.  
3. The Op no. 2  stated that the answering OP is not connected with the manufacturing  and selling any beverage/drink and it is well known in the industry that counterfeit product of the soft drink is rampant in the market. It is impossible that packet enters the bottles by ignorance of the bottler and the fact is that someone has to push  the gutka pouch inside the narrow neck of the bottle which may be a malicious act of the third party. It is strongly suggested that the complained soft drink may have been a counterfeit one.    
4. The op no. 3 has not filed WS despite of sufficient service.
5. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops have also filed affidavits in support of their pleadings.
6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel. We have also perused the rulings referred to by the parties.
7. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
8. It is not established with satisfactory evidence  that the bottle of thumbs up was sold to the complainant and it has also not been established that the alleged bottle of thumbs up was the product of ops. There is a possibility of counterfeit bottle of the Thumbs up. There is also no evidence to prove that any harm or injury was caused to the complainant. there is no substance in the complaint and liable to be dismiss. 
9. The question formulated above is decided against  the complainants.
10. We hereby dismiss the complaint.
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.