Punjab

Sangrur

CC/266/2017

Mandeep Kumar Gandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.K.C. Anpurna Pure Veg Restaurant - Opp.Party(s)

Smt.Harmanpreet Kaur

02 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    266

                                                Instituted on:      06.06.2017

                                                Decided on:       02.02.2018

 

 

Mandeep Kumar Gandhi son of Ram Kishan Gandhi, resident of Block-F, H.No.9, Officer Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

1.     S.K.C. Anpurna Pure Veg. Restaurant, Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

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

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Shubham Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Shri GS Sidhu, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

               

Order by : Sarita Garg, Member.

 

1.             Shri Mandeep Kumar Gandhi, 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 30.5.2017 the complainant purchased four Fanta bottles of 300 ML soft drink made of Coca cola from the OP number 1 by paying a sum of Rs.60/- vide bill dated 30.5.2017.  Further case of the complainant is that when the complainant and family members consumed three bottles of the cold drink and thereafter  tried to use the last bottle of coca cola, then the complainant found that there were foreign particles in the sealed bottle.  As such, the complainant immediately approached OP number 1 and showed the bottle in question, but the OP number 1 instead of redressing the grievance of the complainant told him that he is only the seller and not the manufacturer and done nothing in this respect.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay him a compensation of Rs.75,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Op number 1, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased four bottles of Fanta from the OP number 1. It is further admitted that the complainant approached the OP number 1 and the OP number 1 told the complainant that he had purchased the same from Guru Kirpa Traders, Sangrur, so he has no liability to pay any compensation to the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as he is not a consumer as the complainant did not purchase the disputed bottle, that the complaint is not maintainable  and that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts including the one where complainant alleges in this complaint to purchase, four Fanta bottles of 300 ML from the OP number 1 and consumed three bottles and afterwards, tried to use last bottle of Coca Cola which was never purchased by him from OP number 1, as such the complaint is said to be false, frivolous and vexatious one in nature. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has failed to prove that he had purchased four bottles of Fanta cold drink and it is stated that as per the complaint, he himself admitted in para number 3(a) that he purchased four fanta bottles of 300 ml, nowhere in this complaint he has mentioned that he had purchased cold drink of coca cola which has no match in colour with Fanta.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 original bottle Fanta cold drink no. BNA 17068 LA dt. 4.5.2017 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1  has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of bill dated 22.5.2017 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 and Ex.OP2/3 copies of authority letter and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted case of the complainant that the complainant has purchased four Fanta bottles of 300 ML each which is manufactured by the Coca Cola company from the shop of OP number 1 by paying the amount of Rs.60/-, as is evident from the copy of bill dated 30.5.2017 on record as Ex.C-2.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant and his family members consumed three bottles of cold drink and when he tried to consume the last bottle of coca cola, then he found foreign particles in that sealed bottle.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that he showed the bottle in question to OP number 1, but the OP number 1 stated that he is not the manufacturer of the soft drink and he is the only seller of the same.  Now, the fact remains which we have to decide is whether the complainant had purchased Fanta soft drink or Coca Cola soft drink, which are different in nature and colour.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has averred in the complaint as well as in his affidavit Ex.C-1 that when he tried to consume the last bottle of coca cola, then he found some foreign particles in the bottle in question, whereas he has stated that he had purchased Four bottles of Fanta.  The complainant has also produced on record the Fanta bottle Ex.C-3, which contains the foreign particles, but the fact remains that the complainant has alleged that when he tried to use the last bottle of coca cola found containing foreign particles, which has not been produced on record, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is himself confused whether he purchased Fanta or Coca Cola bottles (which are different in nature and colour). We have also perused the bill Ex.C-2, but it no where shows whether the complainant has purchased Fanta or Coca Cola beverages. As such, in the circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to establish his case.

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        February 2, 2018.

                                                                                                                     

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                           Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member