COMPLAINT FILED:30.03.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 27th AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.736/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri T.P.Kiran,<br /> S/o Dr. Puttaswamy Gowda,<br /> 35 years,<br /> No.5, Nagappa Street,<br /> Seshadripuram,<br /> Bangalore – 560 020.<br /> <br /> Advocate Sri R.B.Sadasivappa <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Team Leader,<br /> Quality Assurance,<br /> Hindustan Coco-Cola <br /> Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Plot No.18, <br /> Bidadi Industrial Area,<br /> Bidadi Hobli,<br /> Ramanagaram District. <br /> <br /> 2. Head, Public Affairs &<br /> Communications,<br /> Karnataka Operations,<br /> Hindustan Coco-Cola <br /> Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> No.44/1, Bellary Road,<br /> Kodigehalli Gate,<br /> Hebbal,<br /> Bangalore – 560 092.<br /> <br /> Advocate Sri N.Nagaraja<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service in supplying contaminated soft drink. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant purchased 200 ml sprite bottle manufactured and supplied by the OP. When he intended to consume the said soft drink to his utter and shock a surprise he noticed two ghutka packets inside the said bottle. Immediately he contacted the OPs and complained about selling the adulterated spurious drinks, which is hazardous to the health conditions of the consumer. There was no proper response from the OP. The repeated requests and demands made by the complaint to OP to compensate him by causing notice went in futile. Under the circumstances he felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to the OP complainant is not a consumer as defined under Act. He has not availed the service of the OP. Before release of the said products. OP conduct various tests as per the guidelines. Manufacture the products and after processing the said bottle as contemplated they release it for the sale. The allegations of the complainant that the said soft drink is adultrated is false. OP has suitably replied the legal notice given by the complainant. Neither, there is any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Complainant has produced the said sprite bottle containing the contaminated drink. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one 200 ml sprite bottle manufactured and supplied by the OP. The said bottle in the sealed condition it is produced before the Forum. Of course on going through the defence set out by the OP no where it has disputed the manufacturing processing and bottling of the said product. On the close scrutiny of the bottle date of manufacture is 08.04.07 and the batch No.0058. What is its expiry period or within how many months the said soft drinks is fit for human consumption is not specifically stated by the OP. If the said drink is processed and sealed the bottle in April-2007 and if the complainant purchased it in 2009, naturally the said drink must have been crossed the expiry period. In the ordinary course of time expiry period for such drink is six months and if consumer drinks such drink after expiry period it will be hazardous to life. <br /> <br /> 9. According to the complainant, when he is about to open the cap of the said sealed bottle, he noticed two ghutka packets inside the bottle floating in the said soft drink. Now also it can be seen with necked eye. If OP is of the view that the said bottle does not contain spurious drink or contaminated one it would have sought for sending the said bottle for chemical examination, but no such steps are taken by the OP. When we can see the ghutka packets floating inside the bottle with necked eye in our view, no more experts evidence is required to support and substantiate the allegations made by the complainant. <br /> <br /> 10. Complainant has not made any delay in approaching the OP. He also caused the legal notice, copy of the legal notice is produced. The reply given by the OP is rather bold. If OP is of the view that they did fallow the manufacturing practices (GMP) while processing the sealed bottle under dispute, then it is for them to explain how does two ghutka packets found inside the sealed bottle. In our view OP has failed to give satisfactory explanation in that regard. <br /> <br /> 11. As it is there is no personal ill will or grudge between the complainant and the might OP company. Because complainant felt the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in processing and releasing the said contaminated adulterated spurious drink for the public to consume he knocked the doors of consumer Fora. The approach of the complainant appears to be fair and honest, there is nothing to discord his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to avoid their liability and obligations. <br /> <br /> 12. Viewed from any angle we are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is a consumer as defined under the act as he has availed the services by purchasing the said bottle for consideration from OP. Thus we do not find force in the defence of the OP in that regard. Of course complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- which appears to be exorbitant. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigations cost of Rs.1,000/- with these reasons we answer point Nos. 1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> s.n.m. <br />