<br /> By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> The gist of the case is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant has purchased a bottle of mineral water of 'Kingfisher premium' from the 2nd opposite party on 18-4-2007. This brand bottled water is supplied by the 1st opposite party and complainant is a regular consumer of this brand. The bottled water was purchased on 18-4-2007 and it was seen containing impurities and the complainant informed the matter to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party did not respond to the complaint of the complainant and he sent a lawyer notice to 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party also evaded from responding to the complaint. The opposite parties have supplied sub-standard drinking- water to the consumer. This is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. So the complainant prays for an order directing <br /> Contd......2)<br /> 2<br /> the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.95,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 2. The 1st and 2nd opposite party appeared on notice and filed version. The 1st opposite party denies the allegation of purchase of bottled water and use of 'Kingfisher premium' mineral water on 18-4-07 and the sale by the 2nd opposite party. The same has to be proved by the complainant. The 1st opposite party is a ISI certified organisation and strictly monitoring the product quality aspect through periodic factory inspection and random testing of the product at approved laboratories. 1st Opposite party is bottling and supplying the mineral water as per quality standard laid down by Bureau of Indian Standards. 1st opposite party also submits that to ensure the particular standard, the opposite party is having a laboratory where each batch of product is subjected to test for micro- biological and chemical parameters and counter samples are kept for observation in the laboratory. If the bottles are kept exposed to the sunlight at the retail points, there is a chance of forming green coloured suspension with bottles and for the same, the 1st opposite party is not liable. The 1st opposite party further submitted that the bottles collected by the complainant were out- dated or duplicate. The 1st opposite party has stopped the bottling of 'kingfisher' brand in the month of January 2007. The 1st opposite party never supplied mineral water of substandared quality and maintained requisit standard. The complaint is an attempt to farnish the company's name among the general public, now the 1st opposite is having good business in the market. So, the 1st opposite party prays for an order dismissing the complaint. The 2nd opposite party in his version states that he keeps the mineral water bottles in fridge. The 2nd opposite party admits that the complainant has purchased kingfisher premium' mineral water from his on shop 18.4.07. Second opposite party state that algae particles are found in the water only due to the unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party is in no way responsible for that. The 2nd opposite party is merely a supplier of the product of <br /> Contd...3)<br /> 3<br /> the 1st opposite party and not liable to compensate the complainant. <br /> <br /> 3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The disputed 2 bottles of mineral water were sent to The government Analyst, Regional Anlytical Laboratory, Malaparamba, Calicut, the report was marked as Ext. C1. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence, either oral or documental.<br /> <br /> 4. The issues in dispute are as follows:<br /> 1. Whether the disputed bottles of mineral water are substandard quality..<br /> 2. Whether the opposite party is entitled for any relief.<br /> <br /> 5.Point No.1: Ext. C1 the Analist's report shows that the quality of one of the 2 bottles of water is not satisfactory, as it contains algae particles. The 1st opposite party in their version has stated that if the bottles were exposed or kept by the sunlight at the retail points, there is a chance of forming green colored suspension. There is no expert opinion to that effect. On the other hand, the complainant in his deposition and 2nd opposite party affirmed that the bottles were kept in the fridge. The contention of 1st opposite party is not supported by any kind of evidence so, the 1st point found is against the 1st opposite party.<br /> <br /> Point No.2: As point No.1 is found against 1st opposite party, point number 2 is found in favour of complainant. The complainant has asked for a compensation of Rs.95,000/- There is no justification for demanding such a huge amount as compensation. The complainant has not drunk the water, no health problem arouse due to that. Only difficulty caused was that he could not drink water when it was felt necessary. He was a regular customer of this particular brand of<br /> Contd........4)<br /> <br /> 4<br /> mineral water and the product supplied was contaminated. To that effect also, the consumer is to be compensated. <br /> Hence the 1st opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost, payable to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open forum on 11th day of June, 2008.<br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: I Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: II Sd/-<br /> /True copy/ Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> APPENDIX:<br /> Witnesses examined for complainant.<br /> PW1 V. Mustafa Complainant<br /> Witnesses examined for opposite parties:<br /> Nil<br /> Exhibits marked for Complainant<br /> A1 (Series) copy of lawyer notice, Postel receipt,<br /> A2 AD card<br /> A3 Reply notice<br /> C1 Analist's report <br /> Exhibits marked for opposite parties:<br /> Nil