BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G. Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),
Male Member
Thursday the 3rd day of February, 2011
CC. No. 18 of 2010
Between:
R. Sangameshwar Reddy S/o Veera Reddy,
Aged About 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o H.No. 1-44, Kulabgorr Village,
Sangareddy Mandal, Medak district. .... Complainant
And
1. SKR Baker Cool drinks,
Juice & Ice Cream Parlor, Prop.,
Ch. pandu S/o Vittal,
Aged about 25 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Pothreddypally X road Village,
Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.
2. The Managing director,
Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,
Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal,
Medak District. … Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 21.01.2011 in the presence of Sri N. Veeranna Patil, Advocate for the Complainant, Opposite party No. 1 called absent and Sri N. Shiva Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.2, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)
1. The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying that this Hon'ble forum may award an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for manufacture, supply and sale of contaminated thums up bottle and cost of Rs. 10,000/- and any other suitable reliefs.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
2. The complainant is a permanent resident of Kulabgoor village and regularly travels to Pothireddy village X road. On 25.12.2009 for his nephew Abhishek Reddy's birthday he went there with a cake, Mixure and he had also purchased 200 ml thums up bottle - 4 nos., costing Rs. 8/- each his total bill was Rs. 242/-. All this was purchased from opposite party No. 1. The complainant also filed the original bill receipt dated 25.12.2009. He further submits that during the birthday function 3 thums up bottles of 200 ml was consumed and one was kept aside for his nephew. But on 04.01.2010 when the complainant wished to consume the fourth and remaining thums up bottle, he found a Sagar Gutka Sachet inside. The substance of a dangerous nature was found in the sealed bottle and the complainant kept it safely with a view to show the same to opposite party No. 1.
The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and showed the adulterated thums up bottle. Opposite party No. 1 replied violently saying that he was not responsible for the existing defect, but the manufacturer could be held responsible. The complainant was denied the satisfaction of consuming the cool drink despite having paid the price for the bottles. The opposite parties could not satisfy the consumer in proportion to the value paid. In the instance the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 should be duly punished for the breach committed by them. The original thums up bottle was deposited in the court at the time of trial. On 07.01.2010 the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and they replied duly on 19.01.2010 stating that there is no defect or deficiency pertaining to the thums up bottle. The complainant preserved the thums up bottle to substantiate his complaint. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite party No.1 did not submit any written arguments.
4. The opposite party No. 2 filed their version as follows:
At the outset they claim that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on the facts and is liable to be dismissed. The allegations are not specifically admitted and deemed to be denied. They are not aware that the complainant is a permanent resident of Gulabgoor Village and that he travels regularly to Pothireddypally village X road. It is denied that on 25.12.2009 the
complainant purchased 1 Kg Cake, 1/2 kg Kara (Mixure) and four thums up bottle of 200 ml each@ Rs 8/- per bottle and the total bill amounted to Rs.242/-. It is submitted that that the bill produced by the complainant does not provide the TIN number etc., of the vendor. The complainant has created false allegations against the opposite party No. 2. On prima facie the complainant has not purchased the product for a valid consideration and for his personal use. As such the complainant is not a consumer under the purview of the act and hence to be dismissed. He is trying to damage the good will and reputation of opposite party No. 2. They denied the allegation made in para 2 and 3 of the complaint.
It is pertinent to mention have that opposite party No. 2 person Mr. Harsha Vardhan Reddy, S.E of Sangareddy contacted the complainant counsel on 12.01.2010 at 6:00 p.m. to inspect the bottle but was refused. They state that it is highly impossible to have a Sagar Gutka Packet in one of the thums up bottle because their quality assurance procedure is strictly adhered to. Many spurious/counterfeit products are sold in the market there by leading to their renowned brand name being sullied. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 07.01.2010, the opposite party No. 2 replied on 19.01.2010. They deny the documents filed by the complainant and that they are not liable to compensate the complainant for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. They claim that there is a connecting link between the complainant, vendor and the distributor and the bills produced are not original. This forum has no jurisdiction to resolve all these disputed facts and questions involved. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
It is submitted that M/s Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage private Limited is a company registered under the companies Act, 1956 and they have earned the good will and reputation through dedicated hard work and take grave exception to the irresponsible comments and baseless allegations made by the complainant.
They follow extremely high standards of quality and integrity in producing all their products. Utmost attention is given to quality and authencity of the product. Ingredients are subjected to a series of analytical tests to conform to
company standards. They follow good manufacturing Practices (GMP). They have submitted their Manufacturing process and procedure in great detail to the forum.
The individual product goes through several checks and controls before leaving the plant. The ultimate product that reaches the consumer is impeccable in quality. The presence of unwanted particulars or dust in thums up as alleged by the complainant is not possible. They requested the complainant to submit the bottle for investigation but he did not comply. Hence they claim that the complainant did not approach the forum with clean hands and is misleading the court. They pray that the Hon'ble Forum may dismiss the complaint as against opposite party No. 2 with exemplary cost, in the interest of justice.
5. Complainant filed his evidence affidavit to prove the contents of the complaint and marked Ex.A1 to A6 document and M.O.1 material object (Thums up bottle containing gutka packet). Written arguments of complainant filed and treated as oral arguments. Opposite party No. 2 filed written arguments but did not submit any documents. oral arguments of opposite party No. 2 taken as heard. Perused the record.
6. i).The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the damages and compensation
prayed for ?
ii). Whether the complaint is maintainable under this Hon'ble forum?
Point:
7. The complainant's case is that on 25.12.2009 he purchased four thums up bottles along with cake and khara from opposite party No. 1 under Ex. A1 for Rs. 242/- each bottle was purchased @ Rs. 8/- and subsequently he found a gutka packet in one of the bottles, therefore the seal was not opened and he approached opposite party No. 1 but the burden was thrown on opposite party No. 2 stating that he is the manufacturer and therefore responsible, where as opposite party No.1 is only a seller. The sealed thums up bottle containing the gutka packet is marked as M.O.1.
8. Ex.A1 receipt of opposite party No. 1 is dated 25.12.2009 and stands in the name of the complainant. It was issued for purchase of cake, khara, four thums up bottles and deposit for the empty bottles. Though the contents of Ex.A1 receipt are in favour of the complainant's contention, it does not contain the batch No of the thums up bottle purchased by him. It is therefore held the complainant has proved his case.
9. As M.O.1 contains the packet with the letters SAGAR (Gutka), and as the complainant stated that it is a gutka packet, there is no contra evidence. Certainly the complainant must have been shocked by the presence of a gutka packet in a thums up bottle purchased for his nephews birthday party. It is not known whether the contains of the said gutka packet leaked into the thums up bottle or not. if so it is injurious to the health of the person drinking it. This clearly proves negligence on the part of the manufacturer who is opposite party No. 2 and also on the part of opposite party No. 1 who sold such a thums up bottle. M.O. 1 must be said to be defective goods and hence both the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
10. Relying on the judgment given by the Hon'ble State Commission, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Raj Pal vs. Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and others (2011 CTJ 108 (CP) (SCDRC),dated 31.05.2010).
11. Complainant is entitled to damages, for the cool drink contained in M.O. 1 bottle leading to negligence and wrong doing on the part of opposite parties. In the circumstances it is held that the complainant is entitled to the cost of M.O. 1 (Rs.8/-) thums up bottle and to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The complaint is pertaining to this forum under Sec. 14(1) clause ‘d’ of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it comes under the jurisdiction. The contention of the opposite party No. 2 is not correct. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the litigation and also pay a sum of Rs. 8/- towards the costs of M.O. 1 (thums up bottle). M.O.1 will be destroyed after a period of one month. The liability of the opposite party No. 1 and 2 is joint and several. One month time is granted for payment.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 3rd day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Lady Member Male Member
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
-Nil- -Nil-
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
Ex.A1/dt.25.12.2009 - Receipt. -Nil-
Ex.A2 & A3/dt.07.01.2010 - Postal registration receipts.
Ex.A4/dt.07.01.2010 - Copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.A5/dt.19.01.2010 - Reply notice.
Ex.A6/dt. - Photos (3).
MATERIAL OBJECTS
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
M.O.1 – Thums up bottle with a gutka packet -Nil-
Sd/-
Lady Member
Copy to:
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.Party
3) Spare copy copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Parties On ___________
Dis.No. /2011, dt.
