IA/20075/2017

        For the reasons stated in the Application, delay in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.  The Application is disposed of.

REVISION  PETITION

        Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the Complainant, is to the order dated 19.7.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.302/2017.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 12.4.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) at Tis Hazari, Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.194/2013.  By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Petitioner, who is stated to be running a small shop under the name and style of M/s Deepika Store, alleging defect in the bottled water, marketed by the Opposite Parties, the Respondents herein, under the brand name of ‘Bisleri’, as in one of the bottles, purchased by him for resale, was found to contain bacteria, worms and insects, the District Forum had directed the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner a sum of ₹15,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by him as well as towards costs of litigation.  Dismissing the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner seeking enhancement of the compensation, the State Commission has observed as follows :

“The short question for determination in this case is whether the orders of the District Fora awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/- suffers from any infirmity.  We note that admittedly the water bottle containing the bacteria was not consumed by anyone. If that is the case there appears to be no danger to the life of anyone. Besides awarding of compensation in a matter is left to the total discretion of the court which would vary from case to case. There Lordships in her matter of Ghaziabad Development Authority V/s. Balabir Singh reported in 11 (2004) CPJ 12 have held that the matter of compensation is something which would vary from facts of each case. There cannot be any codified law on the subject.  Besides the compensation has to be reasonable, based on the principle of restitution interregnum which provides that a person is entitled to damages which would put him in same position as he would have been if he had not sustained wrong.

 The Consumer Fora is not meant to enrich a consumer as laid down. The NCDRC in Surender Kumar Tyagi vs. Jagat Nursing Home reported in IV(2010) CPJ 199, have held that compensation has to be reasonable. It is not to enrich the consumers.”

        Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the documents on record, in our view, the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit.  Apart from the fact that admittedly the bottle in question was not got tested in a laboratory to ascertain the nature of the foreign matter in the water, making the finding of defect, as deficiency in Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by both the fora below vulnerable, the award of the afore-stated amount as compensation cannot be said to be inadequate as, fortunately, no one had consumed the alleged defective water.  Even otherwise, as rightly observed by the State Commission, the award of compensation vary from case to case, depending on the facts of each case and no hard-and-fast rule therefor can be laid down.  On facts at hand, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in our limited revisional jurisdiction.

        Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.