1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased 100 Bottles of drinking water on 27.2.2015 from Koraput Market for a function which are manufactured by OP.1 and found dirty materials inside the water bottle.  It is submitted that the OPNo.1 is supplying the defective goods without license from OP No.2 and on several requests, the Ops 1 & 2 are not providing essential services to the consumers.  With these allegations, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.2000/- and to pay Rs.25, 500/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and raised preliminary objections stating that the complainant is not his consumer.  It is contended that the complaint is false and not maintainable for non joinder of necessary and proper party.  The OP further contended that the complainant has not purchased 100 Nos. of water bottle manufactured by the OP on 27.2.15 as the complainant has neither furnished any purchase bill in support of his allegations nor the alleged contaminated water bottles in this case for perusal of the Forum.  It is further contended that the complainant has not furnished any test report of appropriate laboratory regarding purity of the water but on the other hand the OP is maintaining proper quality control as per norms of State and Central Government and is having different license from different authorities to run his business.  The OP also further contended that he has got valid license from 30.4.15 to 29.4.16 issued by OP.2 and he has also got license of BIS valid till 15.5.15.  The OP submitted that the complainant is an Editor of a local Newspaper and a Press Reporter and demands bribe from the OP and gives threatens to the OP also.  With above contentions, denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 also filed counter contending that the OP.1 had applied for Food License during January, 2015 and on receipt of complete application and documents, the authority issued license in April, 2015.  The OP contended that an applicant may commence his food business after applying for food license.  After receipt of complaint from the complainant regarding contaminated water, the Food Security Officer investigated the matter and sent the sample of water bottle of OP.1 to Food Analyst; Odisha on 27.2.15 and the report of packaged drinking water sample received from the Analyst was satisfactory.  It is contended that they are at close surveillance to remove such bottlenecks and to punish the delinquent defaulters.

4.                     The OP.2 has furnished report of Analyst.  In this case the complainant and the Ops did not appear before the Forum on the dates fixed and hence the matter was posted for orders on merit.

5.                     In this case the complainant stated that he purchased 100 bottles of drinking water on 27.2.15 from Koraput market for a function which were manufactured by OP.1 and found some dirty materials inside the water bottle.  The OP.1 in his counter stated that the complainant has not purchased the water bottles manufactured by OP.1 on the alleged date as the complainant has nowhere disclosed that from whom he purchased water bottles and of which product.  On close scrutiny of record it was found that no money receipt of retailer or the address of retailer is available or supplied by the complainant.  Further the complainant has not produced the contaminated water bottles before the Forum for our perusal.  As per settled principle of law, a bare allegation will not do.  It must be supported by cogent evidence.  As the complainant has not furnished any money receipt in support of purchase of water bottles and no bottle alleged to have been contaminated is filed, the complainant failed to prove about the purchase of water bottles which were stated to be manufactured by OP.1.

6.                     It is further seen from the counter of OP.2 that the OP.1 had applied for Food License in the month of January, 2015 and his application for license was under active consideration by OP.2 and finally the authority has issued license in favour of the complainant during April, 2015.  The OP.2 further clarified that an applicant may commence his food business after applying for food license under regulation 2.1.6 & 2.1.4 FSSAI.  The complainant alleged to have been purchased the water bottle on 27.2.15 i.e. much after the application for license by the OP.1. In view of above facts, it is very much clear that the OP.1 is duly licensed to run his food business.  It is further seen that as per allegation of the complainant, the OP.2 has drawn sample water bottles manufactured by the complainant and has sent for laboratory test.  Report dt.18.5.15 of Food Analyst which is on record shows that there is no insects and fungal growth in the package drinking water manufactured by the OP.1.

7.                     From the above discussions, it was clearly ascertained that there is no evidence forthcoming regarding purchase of 100 Nos. of water bottle by the complainant from Koraput market which were manufactured by the OP.1 and the analysis report of package drinking water manufactured by OP.1 was satisfactory.  In view of above facts, we find no merit in the allegations of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)