<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.61 of 2008.<br /> Instituted On: 02.06.2008.<br /> Date of Service: 26.06.2008.<br /> Decided On:02.12.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Rakesh Kumar alias Ramesh Kumar (aged 39 years) son of Sh.Bhagwan Dass, resident of House No.741, Ward No.30, Peepian Wali Gali, Moga, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Rakesh Kumar Goyal, Goyal Agencies, Shop No.SF 32, New Grain Market, Moga.<br /> 2. Ludhiana Beverages Private Limited, G.T.Road, Ludhiana through its Manager.<br /> <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.P.S.Sidhu, Adv.counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.Rakesh Kumar Goyal, Proprietor of OP-1<br /> Sh.Gurbachan Singh, Adv.counsel for OP-2<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Rakesh Kumar alias Ramesh Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Rakesh Kumar Goyal of Goyal Agencies, New Grain Market, Moga (herein-after referred to as ‘Rakesh Kumar’) and another-opposite parties directing them to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment due to deficiency in service for selling coca cola bottle of 300 ML.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, OP1-Rakesh Kumar is doing his business under the name and style of Goyal Agencies, Moga. That OP2-Ludiana Beverages Ludhiana Private Ltd. is manufacturer of coca cola. That the complainant purchased two bottles of coca cola (300 ML) and paid its price. That the complainant consumed one of the bottles and after taking the same, he started vomiting, then the complainant checked the second bottle and found some substance in it. That the complainant went to the shop of OP1-Rakesh Kumar, but to no effect. That the aforesaid bottles were filled/ prepared/ manufactured by OP2-Ludhiana Beverages and therefore, both the OPs are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant due to deficiency in service rendered by them. That due to the aforesaid acts and conduct of the OPs, the complainant had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP1-Rakesh Kumar appeared in person whereas OP2-Ludhiana Beverages appeared through Sh.Gurbachan Singh Advocate and they filed their written replies contesting the same. <br /> 4. OPs took up preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vague and has filed only to harass and blackmail them and the same is liable to be dismissed without any further proceedings. That the beverages were bottled by the franchise of coca cola with most sophisticated modern and automatic plant, which ensure itself a very high standard of hygiene and cleanliness and with strict quality checks and applying my tests for cleaning, washing and rinsing of bottles ruling out any possibility of any foreign material’s presence as alleged and as such the question of negligence of the OPs does not arise. That the complaint has been filed by procuring and using spurious drinks which is readily available in the market or the alleged bottle is tempered with the cork being easily removed and refitted. On merits, it was averred that the complainant is not entitled to relief as claimed as he never purchased the bottle from OP1-Rakesh Kumar, but is claiming the relief on the basis of a bottle which is a spuriously filled/ tempered in the market and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It was further averred that no detail showing the date of purchase, bill or cash memo taken price paid and other detail about any lavel on them has been mentioned. As such no link of the OPs is shown in this complaint except an oral false allegation. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on their part. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of notice Ex.A2, postal receipts Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, acknowledgement Ex.A5 and closed his evidence.<br /> 6. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs tendered in evidence the affidavits of Sh.S.D.Chhabra Chief Executive Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed their evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Rakesh Kumar, complainant and Sh.Gurbachan Singh Adv. counsel for the OPs and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 10. The main grouse of ld.counsel for the complainants was that the complainant no.1 had moved an application Ex.A2 to the Joint Secretary/Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, Panchkula regarding the change of his mother’s name, but inspite of this, the OP1-CBSE has not corrected the same. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainants has some force. Admittedly, the complainant no.1 was studying in the school of OP3-Secret Heart School and passed his matriculation/Indian Certificate of Secondary Education Examination in March 2005 vide Index no.T/5973/109. In the said certificate, the father’s name of the complainant no.1 is mentioned as Harnek Singh while the name of his mother has been mentioned as Jaswinder Kaur. Admittedly, the name of mother of complainant no.1 is Veer Kaur, but after the marriage her name has been changed as Jaswinder Kaur by her in-laws. So the alleged mistake, if any, had been committed by the OP1-CBSE at the instance of complainant no.1 who himself has mentioned the name of his mother as Jaswinder Kaur and not Veer Kaur.<br /> 11. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant no.1 had moved an application Ex.A2 for the change of name of his mother’s name which has duly been received by OP1-CBSE on 14.6.2007. But this application is still pending and has not been decided by OP1-CBSE from the last about one year for the reasons best known to them. The OP1-CBSE shall have decided the same as per their rule and regulation. Thus, we direct the OP1-CBSE to decide this application regarding the change of mother’s name of complainant no.1 either way as per rules of Central Board of Secondary Education. <br /> 12. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has some merit and the same is partly accepted. The OP1-CBSE is directed to decide the application given by complainant no.1 on 14.6.2007 regarding the change of his mother’s name within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:15.05.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />