Karnataka

Kolar

CC/9/2020

Sri.Shoukath Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, MSIL - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Chandrappa

05 Nov 2020

ORDER

Date of Filing: 12.02.2020

Date of Order: 05.11.2020

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 05^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., …… PRESIDENT

SRI. B.M. NAGARAJA, B.A., LLB., ….. MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 09 OF 2020

Sri Shoukath Ali,

S/o. Mohammed,

Aged About 45 years,

Resident of 7^th Cross,

Azad Nagara, Kolar city,

Kolar.                                                                                       ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri.Chandrappa, Advocate)

- V/s –

1) The Manager,

Mysore Sales International

Limited, (MSIL),

Tamaka, Kolar City,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Smt. Kusuma.M, Advocate)

 

2) The Manager,

Mysore Sales International Limited (MSIL),

No.36, Cunningham Road,

Bangalore-560 052.

(Rep. by Smt. Kusuma.M, Advocate)                                       …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

ORDER

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint against OPs and prays to direct the OPs to pay Rs.16,00,597.98 along with interest and such other reliefs.

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, on 22.10.2019 the complainant purchased drinks i.e., MHB quantity 90 ML in bottle No.4640679807 for Rs.90/-, MHB 180 ML No.2, for Rs.360/- and one beer for Rs.165/-, in all Rs.597/- from OP No.2.  The OP No.1 has sold the above said drinks to the complainant.  The OP No.2 has supplied the said product to the OP No.1 and sold the defective goods. Out of that MHB 90 ML bottle contains some poison and the same was mixed by the OPs by negligent manner and the OPs are liable for the above said defective goods.  The said poison drinks were drunken by about 80 members and they are all unconscious and admitted in the private hospital and taken treatment and eight members have spent nearly Rs.8,00,000/-.  The complainant has given legal notice to the OPs on 11.11.2019 through RPAD and the said legal notice was served to the OPs.  OPs have not given any reply and filed this complaint against the OPs.

03.   The complainant has filed 04 documents i.e., 1) Office copy of the Legal notice dated: 11.11.2019. (2) Xerox copy of the Bill No.1291021. (3) Two Original Postal Receipts. (4) Two Original Postal Acknowledgment.

04.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version.  The OPs contended that, the said complaint is not maintainable under law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine.  These OPs denied the entire averments made in Para-2 & 3 as false and filed frivolous complaint that, MHB 90 Ml sold by OP No.1 contained liquor mixed with poison.  The MSIL Liquor outlet is owned and operated by the Government of Karnataka undertaking company.  The MSIL is not the manufacturer of any sort of liquor, they only sell the sealed bottles which are supplied by KSBCL depot.  The MSIL liquor outlet will sell only the sealed bottle at MRP rate only.  No loose selling of the liquor will be done in MSIL Liquor outlet.  The customer will examine the sealed bottle before paying and carrying the liquor bottle.  All the liquor bottles are visible and transparent in nature.  The complainant holds MSIL bill.  The complainant has stated that, he has purchased the MH Brandy 90 Ml for Rs.90/- on 22.10.2019 from Tamaka, MSIL outlet, but whereas the bill shows the price of Rs.102.81.  The complainant has built up a frivolous complaint wherein he has imagined that, the bottle MH Brandy, 90 ml sold by Tamaka, MSIL outlet, contain liquor mixed with poison and causing mischief to a Government company.  The complainant while purchasing the liquor on 22.10.2019 has specifically asked the sales boy to write his name on the bill along with locality i.e., Ajadnagar and the MSIL outlet raise the bill in the said name.  There is no truth in the claim of the complainant as the liquor is manufactured by the breweries / distilleries in batches and there would have been at least some complaints from other alcohol consumers even if there was slight contamination.  If there was any chance of contamination, the entire batch would have been contaminated and there would have been large scale complaints, but there have been no complaints from anywhere and it is nothing but a cooked up story by the complainant.  The complainant has stated at Para-3 that, the poison drinks were drinked by about 80 members and are all unconscious and admitted in the private hospital and taken treatment and 08 members have spent nearly Rs.8,00,000/- and it shows that it is a cooked up data to construct false complaint and it is highly impossible that 80 members consumed 90 Ml of MHB.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief.  OPs are not liable to pay any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

05.   The complainant has not filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief in spite of taking sufficient time.  The General Manager (Legal) has filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief on behalf of OP Nos.1 & 2 and the counsel for OP Nos.1 & 2 has also filed written argument.

06.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

(1) Whether the complainant has made out deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

 

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

 

(3) What order?

 

 

07.   Our findings on the above points are that:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      Are in the Negative.

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

08.   POINT (1) & (2):- These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings.  We have perused the complaint, version and affidavit evidence of the OPs and the written arguments filed by the counsel for the OPs.  The complainant has not filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief, though sufficient opportunities were given and at the time of filing version by OPs they also filed affidavit evidence and written arguments.  Hence we posted the matter for orders as contemplated Under Section 13(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act of 1986 to decide the complaint on merits.  The complainant has filed this complaint on 12.02.2020 before commencement of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019.  The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs for seeking direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,597.98 along with interest and such other relief as the court deems fit.  The gist of the complainant case is that, on 22.10.2019 he purchased MHB quantity of 90 Ml in bottle No.4640679807 for Rs.90/-, MHB 180 Ml No.2, for Rs.360, and one beer for Rs.165.00, and in all Rs.597/- from OP No.1.  But there is some discrepancy in the complaint in that regard.  But on perusal of the Xerox copy of MSIL receipt, it clearly shows that, the complainant has purchased the said above liquor items from OP No.1. 

 

09.   The specific case of the complainant is that, some poison was mixed in the MHB 90 Ml by the OPs by negligence manner and the poisoned drinks were drunken by 80 members and were all unconscious and admitted in the private hospital and taken treatment.  Out of them eight persons were spent Rs.8,00,000/-.  But to support the above said facts the complainant has not examined any other persons who consumed the said poison contained liquor and even the complainant himself has also not examined.  The complainant has also not produced any document to show that, all the 80 persons were admitted to the hospital and so also not produced any document to show that, out of them eight persons were spent a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards treatment, such being so, the said complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and which is nothing but concocted story created by the complainant and dragged the OPs to this District Commission unnecessarily. 

 

10.   On the other hand the OPs have contended that, the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint only to defame the OPs.  The counsel for the OPs has also taken up the contention that, the MSIL outlet is owned and operated by the Government of Karnataka undertaking company and all the outlets will be operated under the utmost carefulness and responsibility.  The MSIL is not the manufacturer of any sort of liquor they only sell the sealed bottles which are supplied by KSBCL depot and no loose selling of the liquor will be done in the MSIL liquor outlet.  To substantiate the said fact the counsel for the OPs has produced sealed bottle of 90 Ml of MHB and MHB 180 Ml No.2.  On perusal of the said bottles they are transparent and are visible to the necked eye and the said bottles are sealed by the manufacturer and so also the MSIL has affixed the sticker on the top of the said bottles which was completely sealed and it cannot be misused in any manner.  Such being so, the contention of the complainant that, some poison was mixed with 90 Ml of MHB liquor and 80 persons were consumed the same and are admitted to the hospital, out of which eight persons were spent Rs.8,00,000/- towards treatment are all not sustainable.  The complainant has cooked-up the story only to gain unlawfully and there is no merit in the complaint and the said complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

11.   Further it is relevant to state here that, the complainant has also not produced any sample of poisoned liquor and so also he has not made any efforts to subject the said liquor for any expert report from Food and Safety Department to substantiate the case of the complainant.  In this regard, we relay the Hon’ble National Commission judgment reported in 2016(2) CPJ Page-97, wherein his lordship has discussed the matter with respect to beverages and no expert opinion – huge compensation claimed – complaint is not maintainable and here in this case on hand, also the complainant has not produced any expert opinion and huge compensation is claimed without any basis.  I also relay another judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2018(4) CPJ Page-815, wherein his lordship has held that, no evidence in support of averments made in the complaint and it is liable to be dismissed.  Here in this case also no evidence to support the averments of the complaint.  The principles of the above said judgments are attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand to dismiss the complaint.  Further it is relevant to state here that, the complainant has also not made the manufacturer as party to the proceedings though the manufacturer is a necessary party to the proceedings.  Further the complainant has also not produced any expert opinion to show that, the alleged 90 Ml of MHB liquor was unfit for human consumption.  Hence as discussed above, the complainant has not made out deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him and accordingly we answer Point (1) & (2) are in the Negative.    

 

12.   POINT (3):-      In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 & 2 and the discussion made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   The Consumer Complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed on cost of Rs.5,000/-. 

02.   The complainant shall pay the said amount to the District Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days and failing which he shall pay 9% interest on the said amount from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties immediately.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 05^THDAY OF NOVEMBER 2020)

 

 

 

                  MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT