<br /> The definite contention of opposite party is that there is no chance of entering a foreign particle in the bottle either in manufacturing or packing process. The manufacturing and packing sites are 1S0 9001-2000 certified from DNV and follow global quality and Standards. Product is manufactured and packed under extreme rigid quality control system. Stringent quality checks are carried out at all levels of manufacturing, packing and even at different stages of distribution. DW1 has testified to that effect. Though he was elaborately cross –examined, nothing has been brought out to disbelieve him. It is pertinent to note that Pw2 has stated that the boost bottle was kept in the kitchen and herself, her brother and Pw1 use the boost. When that be the position there is every possibility for falling foreign particles in the bottle due to negligent handling. <br /> <br /> Pw2 also stated that “ pack ചെയ്തതിലുല്ല അപകത കൊന്ടനു എങനെ സമ്ബവിചതു”; In cross examination she has also admitted that "Seling, Sampling, Packing എന്നിവയുഡെ രീതിയെ കുരിചു എനിക്കു അരിയില്ല" ; So with regard to the negligence of opposite party no reliance can be attributed to their evidence. <br /> <br /> <br /> In our view the complainant, with out any knowledge of manufacturing and Packing process, cannot say that the incident was happened due to the defect in manufacturing and packing process. The allegation of complainant is only their belief, which is totally baseless.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is not particular about the reason how the glass chips came into the bottle. The complainant had only presumptions. We cannot relay upon presumptions and imaginations.<br /> <br /> Complainant is using Boost of the same company even now. We are surprised of that even after such a dangerous incident alleged by the complaint they are using Boost of the same company. This conduct itself is suspicious. Had an incident as alleged has taken place the normal human conduct would be to avoid that product. The continued use of the same product of the opp.party by the Complainant itself is sufficient for an inference that the incident alleged cannot be true or even probable.<br /> <br /> It is worth pointing out that there is a chance of entering foreign particle into the bottle as it was used by small children for several days and without proper care.<br /> <br /> The statements and allegation of the complainant are inconsistent and self-contradictory. The complainant fails to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 30th September, 2008<br /> <br /> INDEX<br /> <br /> List of witness for the complaint<br /> PW1 Gopalakrishnan<br /> Ext. P1: Bill marked dated 03.03.05<br /> Ext. P2: Advocate notice with acknowledgement card and postal receipt <br /> Ext. P3: Advocate notice with acknowledgement card and postal receipt<br /> <br /> List of witness for the opposite party<br /> DW1 : Uckoo Subramanyam.<br /> Ext. D1: Advocate notice<br /> Ext. D2: Advocate notice.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />