DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.508 of 03-11-2010 Decided on 19-05-2011
Dinesh Kumar Garg, aged 28 years son of Sh.Vishwa Mittar C/o Suraj Bhan Vishwamittar, Commission Agents, Lehra Bazar, Rampura Phul, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus M/s Amritsar Crown Corps Pvt. Ltd., Factory 14 Km stone Amritsar, Jallandhar, GT Road, V&PO Nawan Kot, near Jandala Guru, District Amritsar. Harsh Variety Store, Prop. Sanjay Tanwar son of Shri Chiman Lal, resident of near Railway Fatak, Bathinda-Barnala Road, Opposite Stelco Industry, Rampura,
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.K.S.Sidhu, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Vikas Singla, counsel for opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased 2 Sprite bottles 1.5 Ltr. each manufactured by the opposite party No.1 from the opposite party No.2 on 23.10.2010 for Rs.110/- but no bill was issued to the complainant by the opposite party No.2. Out of these 2 bottles, one bottle was consumed by the complainant which caused unnecessary troubles in his abdomen and burning sensation. On checking it from outside, it was found that there is some foreign matter in the bottle i.e. web (Jalla) which was visible to the naked eye and contents of the bottle are contaminated and can cause health hazards. The liquid become unhygienic. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and shown him the bottle but the opposite party No.2 proclaimed that he only purchases the bottles from wholesale dealers and sells it to the consumers or general public in the same position in which, it is purchased and he is not responsible for the contents of the bottle as the bottle is water tight, unopened and received in the same condition from the wholesale dealers in the area as per requirement from time to time, as such, only the opposite party No.1 is responsible. The complainant further alleged that if he consumed the said bottle without seeing the foreign material, it must have adversely effected his health. Hence, the present complaint. 2. The opposite party No.1 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the product of the opposite party No.1 is best for use after the three months from the date of manufacturing. The said product was manufactured on 28.05.2010 vide Batch No.PIBN480 and the same has already expired on 27.08.2010 and the same having been purchased by the complainant without checking the manufacturing and expiry date and after the expiry of 3 months from the date of manufacturing, the opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the same. It further pleaded that the complainant neither purchased two bottles of Sprite from the opposite party No.1 nor the opposite party No.1 is selling the same in retail. Further, the price of the bottle of the opposite party No.1 is Rs.60/- and the complainant cannot buy 2 bottles for Rs.110/-. The opposite party No.1 is preparing a lot containing thousands of bottles at a time and there cannot be any chance of any web (jala) in one of any bottle of the lot There is no possibility of any foreign material in the product of the opposite party No.1 as these are filled with due precautions and care with latest technology machines and also being minutely checked before supply of the same in the market for sale. The opposite party No.1 is using the pet bottles and the bottles once used, are never being re-used by the opposite party No.1 rather each and every time, fresh bottles are being used and all filling the said bottles, the same are duly tested in the Laboratory and only thereafter, the same are supplied in the market for the same. It further pleaded that the product of the opposite party No.1 is best for 3 months from the date of its manufacturing and after the expiry of 3 months, the total stock is taken back by the opposite party No.1 from its authorized dealers and disposed off and if the complainant has purchased the same without checking the manufacturing date, the opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the same. The bottle produced by the complainant before this Forum is also not tight bottle rather the same is loose. There is also no packing of the opposite party No.1 of 1.5 Ltr. out of any products of the opposite party No.1 rather the said bottle is of 2 Ltrs. and the opposite party No.1 is not responsible for any alleged foreign material after expiry of the same. 3. The opposite party No.2 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that it is a retailer/seller and not an authorized stockist of the opposite party No.1. He purchases the Sprite bottles a product of Coca Cola Company in small quantity as per demand and sells the same to the consumers. The opposite party No.2 has pleaded that the complainant has purchased 2 Sprite bottles from the opposite party No.2 against payment of Rs.110/- and bill was not issued as the same was not given to the opposite party No.2 by the dealer of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 has admitted that the complainant came to the opposite party No.2 with complaint that the bottle in question showed some foreign material but the opposite party No.2 is not responsible in any manner because it sells the product in a packed condition as received from the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is not manufacturer or supplier but is a small shopkeeper and has small margin in the bottle. So, he cannot be fastened with any liability. 4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 6. The complainant had purchased 2 Sprite bottles from the opposite party No.2 manufactured by the opposite party No.1 after paying Rs.110/- but no bill was issued with this regard. Out of these 2 bottles, the complainant consumed 1 bottle which caused some troubles in his abdomen and burning sensation. The complainant checked the second bottle, it had some foreign contents in it i.e. web (jalla) which is visible to the naked eye which shows that the contents of the bottle are contaminated, unhygienic and dangerous for human health. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 from where, he had purchased the bottle but the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that he is only dealer and running a very small shop. He purchases the Sprite bottles in very small quantity as per demand and sells it to the consumers. The opposite party No.2 admitted the fact that the complainant has purchased 2 bottles against the payment of Rs.110/- but he has not issued any bill to the complainant as no bill is issued to the opposite party No.2 by the opposite party No.1. Moreover, the opposite party No.2 has submitted that the bottle in question showed some foreign material but the opposite party No.2 is not responsible in any manner because it sells the product in a packed condition as received from the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is not a manufacturer but is a small shopkeeper and has small margin in the bottle. 7. The manufacturing company of the said bottle is opposite party No.1. The complainant has purchased the expired bottles from the opposite party No.2 as the said product was manufactured by the opposite party No.1 on 28.05.2010 vide Batch No.PIBN480 and the same has already been expired on 27.08.2010 and the same has been purchased by the complainant without checking the manufacturing and expiry date. After expiry of the period of 3 months, the opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the same. Further more, the price of the bottle of the opposite party No.1 is Rs.60/- whereas the complainant has purchased 2 bottles for Rs.110/- which are sufficient to show that the opposite party No.2 has sold the bottle on cheaper rate to the complainant as these were expired. The manufacturing date on the said bottle is 28.05.2010 and the said bottle is best for 3 months after the date of its manufacturing date but the complainant purchased the same on 23.10.2010 i.e. after expiry of the said bottle. Further, there is no possibility of foreign material in the product of the opposite party No.1 as these are filled with due precautions and care with latest technology machines and being minutely checked before supply of the same in the market for sale. The opposite party No.1 is using the pet bottles and the bottle once used, are never being re-used rather each and every time, fresh bottles are used and the same are duly tested in the Laboratory and thereafter, the same are supplied in the market for the same. The bottle of the opposite party No.1 is best for use for 3 months after the date of its manufacturing and after the expiry of 3 months, the bottles are taken back by the opposite party No.1 from its authorized dealers. If the complainant has purchased the same without checking the manufacturing and expiry date, the opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the same. 8. The opposite parties have specifically alleged that the bottle produced by the complainant before this Forum is not tight bottle rather the same is loose. The bottle was duly checked by this Forum and it was found that the bottle was fully tight bottle and it was not in loose condition. The complainant has written in his complaint that he has purchased 2 bottles of 1.5 Ltrs. whereas the product of the opposite party No.1 is of 2 Ltrs. The opposite party No.1 floats the bottle in the market which are free from all type of health hazards as these are duly tested and checked in the Laboratory. The opposite party No.2 has admitted the fact that the complainant has purchased 2 bottles for Rs.110/- from it but has refused that he is not authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1. 9. The bottle is brought by the complainant in his evidence. A perusal of bottle shows that there is foreign material which is visible with naked eye i.e. web (Jalla) including worms of black colour floating inside the bottle. If, we take into consideration, the arguments done by the opposite party No.1 that the opposite party No.2 has sold the expired bottle and they are not responsible for expired bottle. The question arises that how after the sale of the bottle, foreign material has entered into the sealed and packed bottle. The opposite party No.1 cannot shed its liability by merely saying that they are not responsible for expired bottle whereas, a bare perusal of this bottle shows that some ant/insect type of object are floating inside the bottle. If there would have been only web(Jalla) inside it, then there was some reason to believe that web(Jalla) has been caused due to expiry of the bottle but the presence of insect/worm shows that this bottle has been floated in the market in the same condition as it has been produced before this Forum. The opposite party No.1 has floated unconsumable bottles in the market which are unfit for human consumption. The expiry of date cannot lead the insects to enter into air tight bottle in any manner and the dealer is also liable as it has sold the bottle containing insects/worms with closed eye. Moreover, the bottle was expired one at the time of purchase. When any dealer sells the expired things cleverly by be-fooling the innocent consumers, they can not be over looked by Consumer Fora. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Aradhna Soft Drinks Company & Anr. Vs. Dr. Sameer Bhardwaj & Anr. 2010 (III) CPJ, 325(NC), wherein, it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(oo),14(1)(d), 21(b) – Food and Beverages – Spurious soft drinks – Foreign material present – District Forum directed Ops to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation – Appeals by Ops dismissed – Appeal by complainant allowed, compensation enhanced – Hence revision – Contention, State Commission not justified in enhancing compensation in absence of test report, rejected – Foreign material visible from naked eye in sealed bottles – Forum observed sending to laboratory for analysis not necessary – State Commission fully justified in enhancing meagre amount of compensation from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.50,000/- - State Commission order upheld. Result: Revision Petition dismissed.” The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in case titled Varun Beverage Ltd. Vs. Santosh Sharma, 2010(III) CPJ 64, wherein, it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15 – Food and Beverage – Cold drink adulterated – Carat of Pepsi bought by complainant – Foreign material found inside one bottle – Manufacturing defect and deficiency in service alleged – Complaint allowed – O.P. directed to refund price of bottle alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000 – Further directions to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- towards Rajasthan Consumer Welfare Fund – Hence appeal – Contention, bottle not sent for expert opinion, no foreign material proved, rejected – Bottle examined by Forum itself – Seal of bottle found intact – Foreign material inside bottle, proved – Order awarding Rs.1,50,000/- to be paid towards Rajasthan Consumer Welfare Fund set aside – Order modified.” The manufacturing date of the said bottle is 28.05.2010 whereas its expiry date was after 3 months and the complainant has purchased it after 5 months of its manufacturing i.e. on 23.10.2010. The opposite party No.2 should have sent the expired bottles back to the Company but it has failed to do so and has intentionally sold the expired bottle to the complainant. The complainant had purchased the same without checking its contents, the consumers should be aware of there things, that what they are purchasing from the market is upto the mark or not and are free from defects. 10. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and Rs.10,000/- as compensation against the opposite party No.1 and Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party No.2. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 19-05-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member ` |
