Haryana

StateCommission

A/866/2014

Varun Beverages Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paramjit Nagar - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.866 of 2014

Date of Institution: 30.09.2014

                                                          Date of Decision: 19.12.2016

 

Varun Beverages Limited, Plot No.SP 290-292, RIICO Industrial Area, Phase-IV Village Chopanki, Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan through its authorized signatory.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1.      Paramjit Nagar, S/o Sh.Bhawar Singh Nagar, proprietor of Shree Balajee Properties, Village Tigaon,Tehsil and District Faridabad.

2.      Ashish Traders, Dealers Pepsi, Manjawali More, village Tigaon,Tehsil and District, Faridabad.

3.      Sanjay Sweets, Near Boys Sr.Secondary School, Village Tigaon, Tehsil and District Faridabad.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.B.S.Taunque, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Amit Arora, Advocate counsel for respondent No.1.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 dispensed with vide order  dated  24.04.2015.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by complainant that he purchased 10 sealed bottles of Pepsi from Sanjay Sweets on 02.06.2009 against payment of Rs.290/-. The details of cold drinks was as under:-

          “Batch No.0144           FPO 13236

          Date 24.05.2009- 7:07         CMD 05/09

          Pepsi: 300                    ML CDV-6540

One of the bottles was found containing steel nut and it was gross negligence in the manufacturing process by O.P.No.1. It also amounted to unfair trade practice. O.P.No.2 was distributor of O.P.No.1.  They be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental harassment etc. besides Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Only O.P.Nos.1 and 3 filed separate reply because O.P.No.2 was proceeded ex parte.  It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that it’s plant for manufacturing cold drinks was modern, sophisticated and most hygienic.  It was manufacturing cold drinks throughout world and was strictly following quality control. There was no  question of steel nut in cold drink manufactured and bottled by it. Due to popularity of it’s products unscrupulous people and firms were illegally and clandestinely manufacturing soft drink under it’s branch name. Criminal complaints were filed against such person time and again.  The averments of complainant about steel nut in a product manufactured by it were altogether wrong. He did not produce any evidence about purchase of the cold drinks and concealed true facts from the Consumer forum. This complaint was filed just for black mail and harassment, so the same be dismissed.

3.      In addition thereto, it was alleged by O.P.No.3 that he only sold the cold drinks to complainant and was not responsible for any steel nut if found in bottle. This was responsibility of manufacturer and distributor i.e. O.P.Nos.1 and 2. Complaint was not maintainable against it and the same be dismissed.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.08.2014 and directed the O.P.No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.5500/- litigation charges.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P.No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that from the perusal of receipt Annexure A dated 02.06.2009 he actually purchased 10 pepsi bottle, one KG barfi and 10 samosas. When one of the bottles was opened that was found containing steel nut. This fact is also corroborated by report of Food Analyst, Haryana Sector 11 Chandigarh dated 27.09.2011. So learned District Forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above.

8.      This argument is of no avail.  Just on the basis of the brand it cannot opined that this bottle was manufactured by O.P.No.1. From the perusal of details given in Ex.RW1/AI, RW1/BI to RW1/B12 it is clear that the matter is reported to the police time and again about manufacturing fake cold drinks by different persons. The cold drink manufactured by O.P.No.1 is very famous and possibility of fake cold drink cannot be ruled out. In the bill vat number etc. are no-where mentioned.  More so the relationship of O.P.No.1 with dealer is on principal-to-principal basis.  Once an article is delivered to dealer and no fault is found, manufacturer cannot be held liable as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in  Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs.Arjun Singh & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 22 (NC).

9.      More so, when the bottle was sent for analysis it was already opened.  As per complainant it was purchased on 02.06.2009 whereas an application to send same for analyzation was moved on 16.05.2011.  Thereafter bottle was sent to public analysis. Vide letter dated 16.08.2011 and he submitted his report on 27.09.2011. It means that the product was analysed after more than two years of purchase whereas it should have been sent immediately for analysis. The print on the crown cork was also not clear as mentioned in report dated 27.09.2011. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

“2.     Label Declaration on bottle and crown cork:- 300  ml. manufactured by M/s Varun Beverages Ltd., 290/291, RICCO Industrial Area, Phase VII, Bhiwadi, Alwar Best before 6 months from the date of manufacture.  Batch number and manufacturing date are not mentioned on the neck of the bottle. Other particulars on the crown cork are not legible as the crown cork is rusty.

Opinion:- 1 Complete particulars are not legible on the label of the sample due to rusty crown cork so it is misbranded.

2.  (a) The sample contains foreign particles in appreciable quantity including one Iron Nut whereas it should be free from the same.

(b)     Total plate count per ml of the sample is 4173 cfu  against the maximum prescribed limit of 50.0 cfu as laid down for carbonated water in regulation 2.10.6 of Food safety and standards (food Products Standards and food additives) regulation 2011.

Hence the sample is unsafe and unfit for human consumption.”

10.    In such a situation it cannot be opined that the cold drink was manufactured by O.P.No.1 or it was adulterated. These views are also fortified by this commission expressed in first appeal No.1431 of 2010 titled as M/s Varun Heverages vs. Prakash Singh decided on 31.07.2012.

11.    Keeping in view the aforesaid facts impugned order dated  20.08.2014 cannot be sustained. Resultantly the same is set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.32,750/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification.

 

December 19, 2016         Urvashi Agnihotri             R.K.Bishnoi                                                  Member                           Judicial Member                                            Addl. Bench                     Addl.Bench           

S.K.