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

Wednesday, the 16^th day of March, 2011

CC. No.  37 of  2010

Between:

K. Rajasekhar S/o Narsimha,

Aged about 23 years, Occ: Business,

H.No. 3-9-144, R/o Medak village and Mandal,

Medak District.                                                                        … Complainant

          And

1. Sri Rajarajeswari Wines,

Mambojipally village,

Medak Mandal & District.

2. Specially Blended & Bottled by

Kamal Wineries Pvt., Ltd.,

At Nandigama Village, Kothur Mandal,

Mahaboobnagar District.

3. Allied Blenders & Distilleries Pvt., Ltd.,

Mumbai – 400 004.                                                          ….Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 04.03.2011 in the presence of Sri D. Vijay Babu Goud, Advocate for complainant, Sri V.S.S.N. Swamy, Advocate for opposite party No. 1, Sri E. Jangaiah, Advocate for opposite party No. 2 and Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No. 3, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following

O R D E R

(Per Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)

                   This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay cost of damaged whisky bottles Rs. 278/- and damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant with interest and costs.

The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:

1.            The complainant was blessed with a female child and in that connection a function was arranged in his house on 03.01.2010 and to serve to the guests he has purchased from opposite party No. 1 two B.P.(P) bottles for Rs. 230/- , two O.C.(P) bottles for Rs. 278/- one R. stag (P) for Rs. 234/- and Six R.C. beers for Rs. 360/- total for a sum of Rs. 1102/- vide receipt No. 3025, dated 03.01.2010. After completion of the function the complainant found O.C. (P) is full of dust and glass pieces, as such he could not open the said two bottles. Immediately the complainant contacted opposite party No. 1 and informed the same; but opposite party No. 1 neither exchanged the damaged bottles nor refund the value of the bottles, on the other hand threatened the complainant with dire consequences. As the two bottles were not useful the guests, who are senior citizens and cast elders of the complainant, suffered much. The complainant failed to satisfy them and thereby suffered mental agony. When the complainant approached opposite party No. 1 with mediators opposite party No. 1 said to them that he would convey the same to the competent authorities and asked the complainant to come later. The complainant went round opposite party No. 1 several times for purpose, but in vain. Having vexed with his attitude the complainant got a legal notice issued to the opposite parties on 11.01.2010 through registered post and also through certificate of posting calling upon them to pay the cost of the two bottles i.e. Rs.278/- and to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- towards damages failing which legal action would be taken. Opposite party No. 1 received the notice on 13.01.2010. Opposite party No. 2 refused to receive the notice. Opposite party No. 3 got a reply sent through M/s. United spirits with false allegations. The opposite parties there by committed deficiency of service and cheated the complainant, hence the complaint.

2.            Even though an advocate filed vakalat for opposite party No. 1 the matter is not contested on behalf of opposite party No. 1 by filing any counter or otherwise.

3.                  The claim of the complainant is resisted by opposite parties No. 2 and 3, by filing counters. The counter of opposite party No. 2 in brief is as follows:

                       The complaint is not maintainable. No material deficiency is attributed in the complaint against opposite party No. 2.  It is incorrect that the complainant was blessed a female child and in that connection a function was performed in his house on 03.01.2010. It is denied that for the said party the complainant purchased two Bagpiper whisky for Rs. 230/-, two officer’s choice whisky for Rs. 278/- , one Royal stag whisky for Rs. 234/- and six R.C. beers for Rs. 360/-, for a total sum of Rs. 1102/- from opposite party No. 1. The further allegations that after completion of the function the complainant found that officer’s choice pint bottles are full of dust and glass pieces as such he could not open the said two bottles is a blatant lie. The whisky bottles have not been produced before this forum for inspection. The allegations that the whisky bottles are damaged and the same was informed to opposite party no. 1 and opposite party No. 1 did not exchange nor refund the amount on the other hand threatened are all fabricated contentions made with ulterior motive therefore they are denied. It is further denied that the guests of the complainant suffered and the complainant failed to satisfy them and there by suffered mental agony. Such allegations are a blatant lie. The other allegation the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 with mediators and opposite party No. 1informed that the matter will be conveyed to competent authorities and that he went round opposite party No. 1 several times etc. is a blatant lie. The complainant has made identical allegations in CC. No. 38/2010 which is filed by himself in this forum, which goes to show that he is in the habit of making such vexations claims to extract money. The same can be inferred even by looking at his claim of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards damages. It is not known as to what damage the complainant suffered with out consuming the whisky. The shop licence of opposite party No. 1 has seazed to exist. It is no more existing. The allegation of contamination in the nature of dust and glass pieces in the bottles of officer’s choice is denied. The complainant has not furnished details as to the alleged batch Number or date of manufacture.  Viewed for any angle absolutely there is no substance in any of the contentions raised by the complaint. The complaint is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4.                The counter of opposite party No. 3 is almost with similar allegations as that of opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 3 denied to have sent  reply through M/s. United Spirits on 15.01.2010.

5.                The complainant filed his evidence affidavit along with officer’s choice prestige whisky bottle and marked Exs.A1 to A8 documents and MO1 material object (Officer’s choice whisky bottle) on his behalf to prove the contents of the complaint. The counsel for opposite party No. 2 filed a memo to verify the liquor bottle produced by the complainant on 29.12.2010. Permission was granted to him to verify in the presence of the Sheristadar and counsel for the complainant. Accordingly counsel for opposite party No. 2 verified MO1 on the same day and the Sheristadar and counsel for complainant made endorsements on the memo about their presence at the time of verification In the next date of adjournment evidence affidavit of opposite party No. 2 filed. There after evidence affidavit of opposite party No. 3 filed. Written arguments of both parties filed. . Complainant’s advocates filed a memo to treat the written arguments as oral arguments. No oral arguments are advanced for opposite parties.  

6.                 The points for consideration are

1. Whether the complainant has proved that officer’s choice whisky bottles were with full of dust and glass pieces?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs. 278/- towards the cost of whisky bottles and for Rs. 10,00,000/- towards damages as prayed for?

Point No. (i):

7.            i). The case of the complainant is that under Ex. A1 he purchased as many as eleven bottles of  liquor including beer from opposite party No. 1 to serve to the guests in the function that was arranged in connection with the birthday function of his daughter and out of the said liquor  bottles two bottles of Officer’s choice  whisky were with full of dust and glass pieces therefore they could not be used due to which the guests were dissatisfied. To prove the same the evidence produced by him is that of his affidavit, Exs.A1 to A8 and MO1.

8.               Ex. A1 is cash bill dated 03.01.2010 for the alleged purchase of eleven liquor bottles including beer. Ex.A2 is office copy of the lawyer notice. Three postal registration receipts are Ex.A3. Three certificates of posting are Ex.A4. Ex.A5 is office copy of letter to the post master. Ex.A6 is reply there  to. Ex.A7 is returned registered cover addressed to opposite party No. 2 with endorsement of refusal. Ex. A8 is reply notice of United spirits for Ex. A2. MO1 is officer’s choice prestige whisky bottle of 375ml capacity.

9.             Opposite parties 2&3 denied the purchase of the disputed bottles by the complainant from opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No.1 remained absent in the proceedings. The complainant has not filed any evidence affidavit of the person connected with Ex. A1 under which he alleged to have purchased the liquor bottles. Moreover Ex.A1 does not contain batch number of the products purchased there under. Even though the complainant’s contention is that the two officer’s choice whisky bottles which were purchased by him under Ex. A1  are with full of dust and glass pieces, he has produced one bottle only out of the two. It is not known as to what happened to the second bottle. The bottle produced by the complainant alleging that it is with full of dust and glass pieces is marked as MO1. As seen from MO1 it contains very clear  honey color liquid with a label showing that it is  whisky. Seal of the bottle is intact. The said bottle does not show dust or glass pieces or even any other contamination which can be seen with naked eye, even on keen observation of it. when the contents of MO1 are very clear and no contamination seen with naked eye, it is not known how the complainant could see full of dust and glass pieces there in. The complainant has not taken any steps to send  MO1 to any laboratory for analysis to find out whether the contents of it are contaminated or not.  As seen from Ex.A8 United Spirits requested the complainant’s advocate in it’s reply to Ex.A2 to forwarded the bottles to their technical center at Bangalore for investigation. The complainant has not stated whether he has taken any steps to forward the bottles for investigation. In fact United Spirits which has given the reply is not concerned in this case. It is not known as to how they received Ex.A2 when it is not addressed to them. Leaving aside the concern of it, as no dust or glass pieces or any other contamination is seen in MO1 it is held that the complaint has failed to prove the said allegation. This point is answered against the complainant.

Point No.(ii):

10.  In view of the finding on point No. (i) above it is held the complainant is not entitled to either refund of the cost of the bottles or for the damages prayed for. This point is also answered against the complainant.

11.                       As the liquid in the MO1 is very clear the contention of the opposite party No. 2 that this is vexation litigation and the complaint is filed to extract money cannot be disbelieved. For the fore going reasons complainant is not entitled to any relief.

12.             In the result the complaint is dismissed with costs, directing the complainant to pay to opposite parties No. 2 and 3 Rs. 500/- each towards costs of this litigation, bearing his own costs. MO1 shall be returned to the complainant after the appeal time.

                   Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this  16^th  day of March, 2011.

          Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                             Sd/-

  PRESIDENT                       LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For the complainant:                                             For the opposite party:

-Nil-                                                                               -Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the  complainant:                                             For the opposite party:

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

Copy to

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.Parties                     Copy delivered to the Complainant/
3. Spare copy                                                 Opp.Parties On _________

Dis.No.                 /2011, dt.