Presented by Miss. B.L.Dora, Member:-<br /> In this case, the Complainant has purchased 10 (ten) pieces of Pepsi 300(three hundred) milliliter each bottle from the Opposite Party No.1(one) for his personal consumption in a party on payment of Rs.200/-(Rupees two hundred) only for the cost of the contains along with the bottles on Dt.12/05/2009 and receives the money receipt from the retailer i.e. Opposite Party No.1(one).<br /> <br /> But when the bottles were open to drink, it was found that foreign material like a pencil battery is inside the bottle, when the Complainant made complain about this, the Opposite Party No.1(one) (retailer) denied to replace the same on saying that the Complainant should put forth his grievance before the Opposite Party No.2(two) who is the authorized agent for the Pepsi products in the locality. The Opposite Party No.3(three) is the bottler of the region who used to pack the contents.<br /> <br /> Then the Complainant went to the shop of the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.12/05/2009 and made complain by showing the Pepsi bottle along with the money receipt of Opposite Party No.1(one) but the Opposite Party No.2(two) also denied to replace the bottle.<br /> <br /> The contents inside the bottle with battery is very much unhygienic for consumption for any one and the act and action of the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant is deficient in rendering service to the consumer. The Complainant has also contacted the Opposite Party No.3(three) time and again over telephone but the Opposite Parties deferred the matter on some pretext, hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> That due to such act by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has sustained monetary loss, mental agony and harassment. Besides it would have been hazardous for his health if he would have intake the contents.<br /> <br /> In order to prove his case, the Complainant relies on the Pepsi bottle, money receipt issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) etc.<br /> <br /> On prayer, the Complainant prays before the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand) only as compensation to the Complainant for their deficiency in service and negligence in duty towards the consumer.<br /> <br /> In response to this the Opposite Party No.1(one) filed his version on admitting that the Complainant has purchased the 10 (ten) bottles including the said bottle from the Opposite Party No.1(one) and denied all other allegation made against him. As a retail seller of Pepsi cold drinks, the Opposite Party No.1(one) purchases the products from the local dealer. So, he has got no nexus with the packing or manufacturing of Pepsi cold drinks. The Local dealer used to supply the packed and sealed bottles with contents inside and after consumption of the contents, the Opposite Party used to return the empty bottles to the dealer.<br /> <br /> When the Complainant made complain before this Opposite Party about the bottle with battery in question, he has politely requested him put his grievance before the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) i.e the dealer and bottler of this product.<br /> <br /> Hence the Opposite Party No.1(one) is no way neglect or deficient or liable for the same defect.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) has filed his version admitting authorized distributorship of Pepsi products in Bargarh used to receive high quantity of Pepsi range of products manufactured, sealed and supplied by the Opposite Party No.3(three) and denied all other allegations made against him and prayed that the Complainant be directed to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only as cost for filing of the vexatious complaint against him.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.3(three) denied all allegations made against him and prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> Perused the documents and heard from the counsels for the parties, it is obvious that the Complainant has purchased the all alleged Pepsi cold drink from the Opposite Party No.1(one). The version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) speaks that, he simply requested the Complainant to put his grievance before the Opposite Party No.2(two), who is the local dealer, from whom he has purchased the products. But on consideration, it is the formost duty of the retailer to receive proper money and give proper good to his customer, without having give and take mentality and doing unfair trade practice. The Complainant has purchased 10(ten) bottles of Pepsi cold drinks from the retailer ( Opposite Party No.1(one)). The bottle submitted by the Complainant, battery inside is nakedly visible and it needs no laboratory test. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has sold the 10 (ten) bottles in retail price without seeing the battery inside is can not be believable, because the 2(two) photographs presented (filed) by the Complainant before the Forum itself indicates about it's transparency. Hence, on complain, the request of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to put his grievance before the Opposite Party No.2(two) is not a genuine answer. If the retailer is negligent to check and verify the product before selling how can he expect that the dealer or bottler can able to check the products packed in caret. After all, the retailer is debarred to sell such type of defective and unhygienic products, knowingly, which is endangerous to human life. If any defect is found out by the retailer, he should bear the loss of the product and is duty bound to return it to the dealer without selling it to his customer. In this matter, the Opposite Party No.1(one) is totally deficient in providing proper service to his customer.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) has also failed to file any documentary evidence that he has purchased the bottles from the Opposite Party No.2(two). He has only stated this in his version. The Complainant has filed two photographs of Pepsi bottles battery inside only shows the impurity in bottling. In order to strengthen his case the Complainant has filed an affidavit stating that the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) have denied to replace the bottle in question and the Opposite Party No.3(three) is the bottler of the region who use to pack the contents in the bottle. So all the Opposite Parties are liable for the selling of defective goods.<br /> <br /> In view of all these facts, it is not doubt that the product is a defective one and hazardous for life. After receiving of money for it, the denial of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to replace the unhygienic product is a proof of his unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Complainant has failed to prove his case against the other Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> In these circumstances the complaint petition is allowed and the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as compensation to the Complainant with a litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only within thirty days hence, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till realization.<br /> <br /> The case is disposed of.<br />