Punjab

Sangrur

CC/423/2014

HARMANDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PROPRIETOR, MONU TEA STALL - Opp.Party(s)

INDERPAL SINGH DHANDLY

04 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

               

                                               

                                                Complaint No.    423

                                                Instituted on:      01.08.2014

                                                Decided on:       04.02.2015

 

Harmandeep Singh son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Near Police Lines, Barnala Road, Sant Attar Singh Ngar, Block B, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant.

                                Versus

1.     Monu Tea Stall, Mandi Gali, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

2.     M/s. Sehaj Ram Ram Kishan Dass, 29, New Grain Market, Sangrur through its Proprietor/partner.

3.     Ludhiana Beverages Pvt. Limited (Coca Cola Co.) 185, GT Road, Ludhiana through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Inderpal Singh, Advocate.

For OP No.1              :       Shri G.S.Chatha, Advocate.

For OP No.2              :       Shri L.K.Singla, Advocate.

For OP No.3              :       Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Harmandeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 10.6.2014 the complainant purchased two bottles of 200 ML of soft drink from Op number 1, manufactured by OP number 3 by paying an amount of Rs.20/- in cash, but no bill was issued by OP number 1 despite demand of the same. It is further averred that the complainant consumed one bottle of the same and when he was to consume the second one, he found that there were foreign particles floating in the same. When the complainant approached OP number 1, it was told that he had to do nothing rather the manufacturer of the bottle is said to be OP number 3.  However, OP number 1 disclosed that the cold drinks have been purchased by him from OP number 2.  Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but of no use. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay him an amount of Rs.1.00,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and Rs.20,500/- on account of  compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, OP number 1 has admitted that the complainant purchased two bottles of 200 ML quantity of soft drink made of Coca Cola from OP number 1 by paying the requisite amount of Rs.20/-.  However, the other allegations of the complainant have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, the allegations of the complainant have been denied for want of knowledge. It is stated that OP number 2 is neither the manufacturer nor the dealer of the OP at present. As such, any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2 has been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, vague, frivolous and vexatious in nature and the jurisdiction of this Forum is also disputed.  On merits, the contents of the complaint are stated to be wrong and false.  It is stated that the OP number 3 did not supply any soft drink to OP number 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint in connivance with OP number 1 only to black mail and harass the OP.   However, it is stated that the beverages are bottled by OP number 3 and its bottling procedure is fully automatic and the sophisticated machinery is being used for washing, filling and crowning of the bottles and at no stage the product is touched by the human hands, which itself ensures a very high standard of hygiene and cleanliness and with strict quality checks.  Al the liquid is tested at the laboratory and sent for being filled in the bottle, as such, any deficiency in service is denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-2 affidavit, Ex.C-3 bottle in question and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/3 copies of bills and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2//3 copies of bills and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased 2 bottles of soft drink from OP number 1.   The complainant has alleged that there were foreign particles in one of the two bottles purchased by him. It is further argued that when he approached OP number 1 for its replacement, the OP number 1 stated that he is neither the manufacturer nor the dealer, as such he is unable to do anything.    A bare perusal of the bottle clearly reveals that there are foreign particles floating in the bottle in question.   We further find that the seal of the bottle is intact.    Since the seal of the bottle is intact, there is no question of filling of spurious contents in the bottle by the complainant, meaning thereby the bottle in question was containing the foreign particles at the time of filling of the contents in the bottle and the bottle in question was not checked properly at the time of filling. As such, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs that the complainant has filed this complaint by procuring or using spuriously filled cold drink.  It is well settled law that if the insect is visible to the naked eye, compensation can be granted to the complainant even in the absence of any report of laboratory.  The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Kandhari Beverages (Pvt) Ltd. versus Robin Verma and another 2012(3) CPC 604, wherein in the similar case the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission has granted a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, holding that where the fungus was visible with naked eyes, there is no requirement of laboratory test of the contents of the cold drink. As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of supply of the cold drinks, which is not fit for human consumption.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint partly and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- within a period of thirty days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall pay to the complainant the above said amount of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of pronouncement of the order till payment.

 

9.             A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 4, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                   President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member