Delhi

North

CC/121/2021

RAM NATH CHAUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. WINE & BEER SHOP & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

S.KAMRAN HAIDER

27 Jun 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.121/2021

In the matter of

Sh.Ram Nath Chaudhary.

S/o Sh.Ram Mohan Chaudhary    

R/o House No.704, Nai Basti

Mukeepura, Subzi Mandi

Ghantaghar, Delhi                                  …               Complainant

                                                          Versus

The In-charge

M/s Wine & Beer Shop

Delhi Estate Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Regd. Office at :

Aaporti Bhawan, 7-9

Aram Bagh, Paharganj

Delhi-110055                                                          …       Opposite Party No. 1

 

M/s Alcobrew Distillers India Pvt.Ltd.

At: Village-Behra, Dera Bassi

Sas Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-140507

Also at :

6^th Floor, Magnum Tower-II

Golf Course Extn. Road

Sector-58, Gurugram (Haryana)                       …       Opposite Party No. 2

ORDER

27/06/2024

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

1. By way of this complaint the complainant has alleged that the liquor bottle purchased on his behalf from M/s Wine & Bear Shop, Delhi (OP-1), which was bottled by M/s Alcobrew Distillers India Pvt.Ltd (OP-2) contained a “Fly/ Makhi”. The Complainant states that on 11.07.2021, at his behest, his friend namely Shri Vikram, S/o Shri Vijay purchased a premium whisky of the make “White and Blue” from the outlet of OP-1 for Rs. 470/-. When the Complainant was about to open the bottle on 14.07.2021, he observed a dead “fly/ makhi” inside the bottle. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the Ops through legal notices, which were replied by the OPs. As the Complainant was not satisfied with the replies of the OPs, he has filed this complaint seeking, inter alia, compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore).
2. In view of the fact that during hearing the complainant pressed his complaint only qua OP-2 and not qua OP-1, we issued notice only to OP-2 in this matter. However the Complainant never filed amended memo of parties despite direction of this Commission. As the Complainant was not pressed qua OP-1, the complaint qua OP-1 stands dismissed.
3. OP-2 upon receiving our notice has filed its reply which was followed by filing rejoinder and evidence by the Complainant and evidence by the OP as well. Thereafter, we have heard the parties on merits before reserving the order. At this stage, it is also important to mention here that OP-2 herein, without admitting any allegations as raised in this complaint, offered a settlement in this matter, which was not accepted by the Complainant.
4. There are two aspects which are to be decided. First, whether the Complainant herein is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or not. Secondly, is there any liability of the OP-2 in this matter.
5. On the issue that whether the Complainant herein is a “consumer” or not, the definition of “consumer” as defined in section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 needs to be read. For the sake of convenience, the said provision is reproduced here:

“2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

…

(7) "consumer" means any person who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause,—

(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;

(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

…”

6. The definition includes the buyers as well as the user of the goods within its ambit. However the user is required to establish the fact that the buyer has authorised use of the goods. In the case in hand, the Complainant had not produced any purchase bill or proof of payment establishing the fact that he is the buyer of the liquor bottle in question. Further, admittedly, the said bottle was purchased by a third person namely Shri Vikram, S/o Shri Vijay. The actual purchaser, in view of the facts as stated by the Complainant is Shri Vikram. He has not approached this Commission. He is not joined as a Complainant in this complaint. Further, there is nothing on record that the said Shri Vikram has handed over liquor bottle in question to the Complainant and authorised him to consume the same.
7. In absence of any evidence that the Complainant has procured the bottle from the alleged purchaser (Shri Vikram) and that Shri Vikram had actually bought the said liquor bottle, none of the conditions as laid down in section 2 (7) of the CPA, 2019 for qualifying the Complainant as a “consumer” are satisfied. Hence, the Complainant herein cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of CPA, 2019. As the Complainant herein cannot be a consumer, this complainant cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
8. Before parting, we would also like to comment on the exorbitant relief claimed by the Complainant herein in this complaint. He has sought compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only). In the Complainant, it has been admitted that the said liquor bottle was not consumer and the Complainant noticed the fly/ makhi before he could open the bottle. The compensation was demanded by the Complainant on the speculative assumption that had he consumed the liquor, he would have “suffered from internal injuries like throat problems, stomach problems and lung problem, or proned problems etc.”. The Complainant has not suffered any loss and his prayer for compensation is for speculative assumed loss. Further, there is no document or pleading on record to suggest that what loss would have caused to the Complainant in case of consumption of the said liquor bottle. He has not been able to justify prayer for exorbitant compensation. It is a settled law that the Complainant filed under CPA 2019, is meant for saving consumer from being exploited and it is not meant for windfall or making purchaser millionaire overnight. CPA, 2019 is welfare legislation and is not meant to be a tool to wrong gains. The compensation sought by the Complainant is dis-appropriately high and the Complainant has not given any proper justification for the same. In our opinion, prayer for high compensation without proper justification by the Complainant herein is not correct and is to be discouraged. For this, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs. Vodafone East Limited [FA 847/2017 decided on 05.10.2018]. Hence, while dismissing this complaint, we also impose a cost of Rs. 2,000/- upon the Complainant to be paid to the State Consumer Welfare Fund (L/ Aid) maintained by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [SB A/c No. 10310544717;  Bank and Branch: State Bank of India, I P Estate, Delhi, IFSC: SBIN0018175].
9.   As a result, the complaint is dismissed with costs as indicated in this order. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order to the parties in accordance with the rules. Thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)    President