Date of filing :28-11-2008 Date of order :14-12-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC. No. 264/08 Dated this, the 14th day of December 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER K.Krishnan, S/o. Karthunhi, R/at Nickunnil House, Balal.Po, } Complainant Kasaragod.Dt. (Adv. Rajagopal.O.C & Roy Paul, Hosdurg) 1. The Manager, Kerala State Beverages Corporation, } Opposite parties F.L.1 Shop No.14010, Vellarikundu.Po, Kasaragod.Dt. 2. The Managing Director, Kerala State Beverage Corporation (K.S.B.C), Thiruvananthapuram. (OPs 1 & 2 Adv. A. Balakrishnan Nair, Kasaragod) 3. M/s Devicolam Distallaries Ltd, Parakkamugal, Kusumagiri.Po, Kochi.30 (Adv. P.V.Jayarajan, Kasaragod) 4. M/s. Kamal Wineries, Hyderabad, Survey No. 1428/’29, Nandigoan, Mahboob Nagar Dist, Andhra Pradesh. 509228. (Adv. P.V.Jayarajan & Nithin George, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The Brief Facts of the complaint. The complainant Krishnan purchased one 500 ml bottle MGM Apple Vodka from Ist opposite party shop for Rs.180/-. He took the bottle to his home to treat some of his friends. On removing the wrapper and before removing the seal in front of the guests he came to see a dead fly is floating in the liquor. The said liquor is blended and bottled by 3rd opposite party for 4th opposite party. One the next day complainant approached opposite party No.1 with the bottle and bill but opposite party No.1 threatened him. He felt humiliated and thus suffered damage without injury. Hence he caused a registered lawyer notice dated 29-09-2008 to opposite parties demanding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. But no reply was received. Hence he filed this complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs with a prayer to substitute the bottle with a defect free one. 2. According to opposite parties 1 & 2 they are only the retail distributors and opposite party No.3 & 4 are the manufacturers of the liquor. Hence opposite parties 3 & 4 alone are liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant neither returned the bottle to opposite party No.1 or 2 nor he informed them on the next day. Had the complainant returned the bottle then they would have replaced the defective one with another as they have nothing to loose. The intention of the complainant is to make baseless allegation to grab money from the opposite parties to no fault of them buy misleading the Forum. 3. Opposite parties 3 & 4 filed separate versions denying the allegations and adopting same contentions. According to opposite parties 3 & 4 before bottling the bottles are cleared thoroughly and inspected by their quality control wing. After filling the bottle with liquor, the bottle is screened again. The question of foreign particulars remaining in the liquor does not arise since utmost care is taken before bottling the product. The complainant had not suffered any injury warranting compensation and the complaint is filed only for the purpose of extracting compensation for making unjust enrichment. 4. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim. Exts A1 to A4 marked. The sealed bottle of Vodka is marked as Ext.MO-1. Complainant was cross-examined by counsels of Opposite parties 1 to 4. 5. Now the issue to be considered is whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation claimed or not? The MO-1 is produced and examined. The sealed bottle contain the sticker MGM VODKA Apple Kiz. The sale price is Rs.180/- inclusive of all taxes. The volum is 500ml when packed. The cap of the bottle and the seal of Excise Commissioner of Kerala State Beverages manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd is found intact. Inside the bottle the colourless liquor is filled. A dead fly is seen floating in the bottle. On examination it is clear that the dead fly is precipitated in the bottle either during it’s manufacturing or bottling process. Hence the contention of opposite parties 3 & 4 that they have checked and rechecked the bottles before and after the bottling is not appears to be true. Had it been so the said bottle should not have sent to opposite parties 1 & 2 for sale. 6. The contention of opposite parties 1 & 2 that they are not liable to compensate the complainant is not sustainable. The seller/trader or distributor also equally liable to compensate the consumer since they are the frontmen in respect of the sale of liquor to consumers. 7. The sale of liquor that contains the precipitation of a dead fly certainly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. A consumer is expected to get good quality products for the price he paid no matter whether it is milk or liquor. It is pertinent to note that no reply was sent by neither of the opposite parties to the Ext.A2 lawyer notice issued by the complainant through his counsel claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/-. However we feels that the compensation claimed by the complainant is excessive. Hence we partly allow the complaint and the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation for the loss, hardships and mental agony suffered by him with a cost of Rs.3000/-. Opposite parties are also directed to take back the liquor bottle that contains the dead fly and refund its purchase price of Rs.180/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Bill issued by K.S.B.C Vellarikundu A2. 29-09-2008 copy of lawyer notice. A3.& A4 Acknowledgement cards. MO-1. Sealed Bottle of Vodka 500 Ml. PW1. K.Krishnan Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi | | 
