Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1410/2008

Prabhot Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Pernod Ricard India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1410/08                     Dated:

In the matter of:

SHRI PRABHJOT SINGH

S/O LATE SH. GURMUKH SINGH,

R/O 22, BANARSI DASS ESTATE,

TIMARPUR,

DELHI-110054

 

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

         

VERSUS

M/S PERNOD RICARD INDIA(P) LTD.,

ASHOKA ESTATE,

BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110001

 

 ALSO AT:

 

M/S PERNOD RICARD INDIA(P) LTD.,

DAURALA SUGAR WORKS DISTILLERY,

DAURALA-250221, DISTT. MEERUT,

U.P.

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

ORDER 

President :  C.K. Chaturvedi

The complainant who claims to be a regular consumer of whiskies of Seagram’s ‘Blender Pride’ has raised a grievance on the description about the blending of whisky, printed on the container of the bottle.  He stated the same to be misleading, as on his visit to the Daurala, where it is claimed to be blended and bottled he did not find any such procedure.

The printed words on the container are as under:-

“BLENDED AND BOTTLED BY PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P)         LTD AT DAURALA SUGAR WORKS DISTILLERY DAURALA 250221 DISTT. MEERUT (U.P.) R.O. ASHOKA EST. N.D.1 MADE IN INDIA”

The OP in its reply has explained that no where on the cover it is mentioned that it is so done in India for last 140 years.  It is explained that the printed word speak of tradition of this whisky which was started by the manufacturer in 140 years experience of after that, and that, brand has travelled to India and purchased by OP from Seagrown carfon of the brands from original manufacturer and that goodwill and brand name are marketed in India by OP.

OP in its written statement has stated as under:-

          “It is submitted that any claim for compensation can be made only when the Complainant has suffered loss or injury due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.  However, the complainant has grossly failed to establish any such loss or damage.  Nothing has either been averred nor has anything been brought on record to show that any loss or damage has been caused to the Complainant.  Further, there is nothing in the complainant to even prima facie suggest that there has been bay negligence on the Respondent’s part, which renders the complainant liable to be rejected.”

 

Having considered the reply and having considered the printed words or carfon and reading the complaint, we do not find any substance in the complaint, which appears to have been filed for publicity or to have speculative gains by litigation with OP.  The complainant has not suffered any loss and promotion of whisky by OP by citing its tradition cannot be called any deficiency.  There is no allegation of any impurity or quality etc.  The complaint is dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

          Pronounced in open Court on 20.10.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER