DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 31St day of October 2008.<br /> <br /> Present : Smt. H. Seena, President<br /> : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member)<br /> Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member)<br /> C.C.No.64/2007<br /> <br /> Jayaraman<br /> S/o. Late V.K. Krishna Verma<br /> Jayakrishna<br /> M.P. Road, Akathrthara<br /> Palakkad. - Complainant<br /> (By Advocate V.K. Venugopalan)<br /> V/s<br /> Ouseph<br /> Shope Keeper<br /> Leo Bhavan<br /> Kallekulangara Bus Stop<br /> M.P. Road, Akathethara<br /> Palakkad - Opposite party <br /> (By Advocate T. Giri)<br /> O R D E R<br /> Order by Smt. H. Seena, President <br /> Complaint in brief is as follows.<br /> On 09.04.2007, complainant purchased a bottle of cold Lehar Pepsi Soda paying Rs.25/- from the shop of the Opposite Party. When opened at home, it was found to be mere water as no gas was left. Immediately the complainant approached the Opposite Party and returned the soda. Opposite party refused to pay the purchase price or replace the soda. When informed, Pepsi agency/distributor, was ready to replace soda through the Opposite party. But the Opposite party was not ready to abide the instruction.<br /> <br /> According to the complainant, the adamant attitude on the part of opposite party is nothing but clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as a shop keeper. Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite party to pay back the value of the <br /> - 2 -<br /> Soda Rs.25/- and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings.<br /> Notice was served and the Opposite party filed version. The contention of the Opposite party is as follows.<br /> The complainant has never purchased Lehar Pepsi Soda paying Rs.25/- from the Opposite party. The subsequent act of the complainant that he returned soda as there was no gas in it and the Opposite party refused to pay the purchase price or replace the goods are specifically denied by the Opposite party. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party viz, the manufacturer and dealer of Pepsi Soda. According to the Opposite party, complaint has been filed on account of a personal grudge between the complainant and Opposite party.<br /> The points for consideration are<br /> 1.Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?<br /> 2.Is there any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite party?<br /> 3.If so, what is the reliefs and cost?<br /> The evidence adduced consists of the proof affidavit of both parties. No documentary evidence on both sides. Even though chief affidavit of witnessess were filed on the side of both parties, neither of them were examined.<br /> Point No. 1.<br /> Complainant states that he has informed the matter to the distributor of Pepsi soda, the Premier Agencies, Palakkad and they were prepared to take back and issue a new bottle of Pepsi Soda through the Opposite party. <br /> The Opposite party has made a definite contention in their version that distributor and <br /> - 3 -<br /> manufacturer of Lehar Pepsi Soda has not made parties<br /> Even then the complainant has not taken any steps to implead them. Lehar Pepsi Soda is distributed to the shop keepers through sealed bottles. In any complaint regarding defect in the said product, manufacturer is a necessary party. Hence the complaint filed without impleading manufacturer is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.<br /> Points 2 & 3<br /> Since the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, we are not going into the merits of the case.<br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.<br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of October 2008.<br /> President (SD)<br /> Member (SD)<br /> Member (SD)<br /> Exhibits marked on the side Complainant<br /> Nil<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite Party<br /> Nil<br /> Cost<br /> Not Allowed<br /> Forwarded/By order<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent