DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th  day of January 2013

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

            : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

            : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member           Date of filing:  30/01/2012

(C.C.No.25/2012)

K.Sunilkumar,

S/o.Arumugan,

Kanjirapparambu Veedu,

Mezhathur (PO),

Thrithala – 679 534                                -       Complainant

(By Adv.B.Kamalchand)

V/s

1.The Manager,

   Kerala State Beverage Corporation,

   Thrithala (No.FL.I 9024),

   Thrithala (PO), Palakkad.

(By Adv.Raghudas S.G)  

2.The Managing Director,

   United Breweries Ltd.,

   United Premier Breweries,

   Kanjikode West (PO),

   Palakkad – 678 623                            -        Opposite parties

(By Adv.Ranjith Unni)  

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

Complainant purchased a bottle  of  beer manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party from 1^st opposite party outlet on 10/01/2012 by paying Rs.55/-. When it was shaking before using some remnants of insects was found deposited at the end of the bottle. 2^nd opposite party has not manufactured the goods with due caution and in hygienic conditions.  The act of 1^st opposite party for selling the defective product is deficiency in service. If the complainant has used the beer, it would have created great health problems. Hence, complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation.

Both opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. 1^st opposite party denies the purchase of beer bottle from them as it does not bear the security label. The produced bill is not related to the outlet of 1^st opposite party. Moreover 1^st opposite party is not a sole seller of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. There are private bar hotels, KTDC and Consumerfed also conducting the same business.  The 1^st opposite party never sell any defective products to its consumers. According to 1^st opposite party mere production of bill will not fasten the liability upon them.

According to 2^nd opposite party, they  are the leading manufacturers of liquor or beer and other brands of liquor of International quality. 2^nd opposite party always insists for quality of highest standard. Further states that 1^st opposite party is their dealer and products are marketed with a clear inscription on the label that the products have only a shelf life of 6 months from the date of manufacture.  The sale of liquor with label was sold through the outlet of them.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.

Complainant and opposite parties filed their affidavit. Ext.A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Lab Report marked as C1. One witness on the side of opposite parties  examined as DW1. Matter heard.  

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties   ?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issue No.1 & 2

We perused relevant documents on record.  The complainant stated that he has purchased a bottle of beer on 10/1/2012 from the 1^st opposite party’s shop and the bottle of beer found contained ant, cockroach and other liquid wastes. It is evident from Ext.A1 that one beer bottle of Rs.55/- purchased from 1^st opposite party on 10/01/2012. In Ext.A1 the name of the complainant was not mentioned. The 1^st opposite party has not produced evidence to show that the name of the customer mentioned in their bill. The complainant produced the beer bottle before the Forum to send to expert examination. The 1^st opposite party has not produced evidence to show that the beer bottle is not sold by them. Moreover the 1^st opposite party was not cross examined the complainant. According to the 1^st opposite party there is no security label connecting with them. Absence of security label be noted. In  Ext.A2 the publication in newspaper also shows that the beer bottle purchased from 1^st opposite party found some wastes of ant and cockroach. The examination of DW1 deposed that before bottling the raw materials cleaned, milling and undergone mash conversion process. Thereafter the beer is filtered through German Technology Filter. Also the bottles are washed by bottle washing machine at 60% temperature. After washing bottles are subject to inspection by electronic machine and by persons. After that beer is filled in bottle and the bottle beer goes for pasteurization. Also DW1 deposed that before marketing Excise Department take the sample and sent to chemical analysis.  Ext.B1 dated 25/11/2011 shows that Batch No.K65, the samples were found to be free from noxious ingredients injurious to health, hence fit for human consumption.

Further DW1 deposed that generally after 6 months proteins will settle down as sediments and it is not harmful and fit for consumption.  Due to hairline crack  Carbon dioxide escapes and oxygen enters. Due to that process also sediments can appear. In the present case the opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that how the sediments found in the beer bottle.

In C1 report stated the sample was found to be contaminated with sediments and hence unfit for human consumption. In the present case complainant stated that the bottle of beer found contained ant, cockroach and other liquid wastes. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties.

In fact there is no security label connecting with the bottle of beer. In Ext.B1 shows that the sample K65 taken and reported on 25/11/2011. In Ext.C1 report  the sample found unfit for human consumption on 26/9/2012. According  to 2^nd opposite party the products have only a shelf life of 6 months from the date of manufacture. The complainant purchased the beer bottle on 10/01/2012 and the complaint filed on 30/01/2012. Ext.A2 Newspaper dated 12/01/2012 published that the beer bottle contained wastes of ants and cockroach. So the complainant purchased the beer and filed the complaint within 6 months.

On the available evidence it is true that the 2^nd opposite party manufactured the beer and 1^st opposite party has sold the beer to the complainant. In C1 report the chemical examiner reported  that the sample was found to be contaminated with sediments and hence unfit for human consumption. The report of the Chemical Examiner in the sample of beer  bottle found after 6 months. But the opposite parties had not examined the Asst.Chemical Examiner as a witness to prove how the sediments found in the beer. The complainant stated that the remnants of some insects was found before opening the bottle. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party. DW1 deposed that average 2.5 lakhs bottles are manufactured per day. In Ext.B1 mentioned that six sealed bottles marked 1 and 6 in laboratory each containing 600 ml  of the sample taken for chemical analysis. The opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that the sediments found in the beer bottle is not the bottle sold by them and the sediments are not unfit for human consumption. The complainant prayed Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental agony. But the complainant has not produced evidence to show the loss of Rs.75,000/- Moreover the complainant has not used the beer. In the Ext.C1 report clearly mentioned that the sample of beer found to be contaminated with sediments and unfit for human consumption.

In the above discussions we are of the view  that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant  an amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only)  as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of January 2013.

      Sd/-

Seena H

President

    Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

      Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  –  Invoice No.0888 dtd.10/01/12 issued by KSBC, FL-1 9024, Thrithala

Ext.A2  –  Papernews in the Deshabimani Daily dated 12/1/12  

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Chemical Analysis Report issued by Joint Chemical Examiner, Regional

            Chemical Examiners Laboratory, Kakkanad.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

DW1 – M.Sriram

Commission Report

C1 –  Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory Report dtd.26/9/12

Cost

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.