BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
Present: Smt: Meena Ramanatham, B.Com.,
Lady Member/Senior Member
Sri. G. Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.LL.B.,
PGADR (NALSAR), Male Member
Monday, the 13th day of September 2010
CC. No. 2 of 2010
Between:
Putti Kishtaiah S/o Laxmaiah,
Aged 58 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Gonglur (v) Pulkal (M),
Medak District.
.... Complainant
And
1. The Managing Director,
Charminar Beverages Ltd.,
Rep by D.V.Reddy Shivampet (v),
Pulkal (M), Medak District.
2. Santosh Wines, Rep.by its Proprietor,
A.Ramulu S/o Ashaiah,aged 30 years,
Occn: Business, R/o Shivampet (V),
Pulkal (M), Medak District.
… Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 26.08.2010 in the presence of Sri. G.Hanmantha Reddy, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri G.Krishna Advocate for opposite party No.1, and Sri A.Ramulu Advocate for opposite party No.2 upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Smt Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1) The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct opposite party Nos.1 & 2 to pay cost of bear bottles. Compensation and damages. The averments complaint in brief are as follows:
2) The complainant is originally resident of Gongular (v) Pulkal (M) Medak District. That on 5.12.2009 the complainant purchased Six Beer bottles which are named Royal Challenge from the opposite party No.2. The Opposite party No.2 also passed a Bill No.91 for Six Beers for a sum of Rs.360/- vide batch No.1189/5/BB dated 3.11.2009 each Beer Bottle @ Rs.60/-. That at the time of purchasing of Beer Bottles it was about 8.00 P.M and the complainant could not examine the Beer Bottles.
3) That on 5.12.2009 the relatives of the complainant came to his house as the complainant purchased the Six Beer Bottles from the opposite party No.2 for consumption including complainant. That while consuming the Beer Bottles the complainant found one Beer Bottle with some articles in the sealed Bottled and the complainant kept aside the said bottle and remaining five bottles were consumed by the complainant and his relatives. That on next i.e. 6.12.2009 the complainant went to the opposite party No.2 and informed him about the Beer bottle which is sealed along with articles such as (GUTKA PACKETS). That immediately the opposite party No.2 informed to the opposite party No.1 about the articles which are sealed in the Beer bottle.
4) It is submitted that the opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of Beer Bottles and the opposite party No.1 used to manufactured the Beer under name and style of Charminar Beverages Ltd., as a “Royal Challenge”. The opposite party No.2 used to sell the sealed Bottles to the customers @ Rs.60/- per bottle. The opposite parties are therefore liable to pay to the complainant Rs.360/- towards the amount lost by him in purchasing the beer bottles and Rs.1,00,000/- towards exemplary compensation and Rs.200/- costs of this complaint. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party No.1 & 2 filed their version with the following averments:
5) The opposite party No.1 says that the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the opposite party exercises great care in the packaging and sale of the beer bottles and the health of the consumers is of the utmost priority for opposite party no.1. It is submitted that the complainant admits that he has not even consumed the beer from the beer bottle in question. Therefore, his claims that he would have lost his life and that he would have fallen seriously ill are specious. It is evident that no injury or harm has been caused to the complainant. Hence the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- sought for by the complainant is exaggerated and has no basis whatsoever. The opposite party No.1 says that does not sell the beer bottles directly to the retailers. As per the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and the accompanying rules, it is mandatory for opposite party No.1 to sell the beer bottles to the A.P.Beverages Corporation Limited (“APBCL”). The opposite party No.2 is a retailer. The bottle could have been tampered with any point during the above process. In any event, without prejudice to the above submissions, due diligence and caution ought to have been exercised by opposite party No.2 and the complainant. The complainant cannot claim that he could not examine the beer bottles as it was 8 p.m., It is further submit that the compensation sought for by the complainant is exaggerated and has only been sought with a view to harass opposite party No.2.
6) The opposite party No.2 filed his version as follows:
It is submit that the complainant purchased six beer bottles on 5.12.2009 of “Royal Challenge” from this opposite party and this opposite party issued a bill to the complainant bearing No.91 dated 05.12.2009 for Rs.360/- @ Rs.60/- each bottle.
The opposite party No.2 could not aware about the relatives of the complainant but it is true that this opposite party found one sealed beer bottle containing one article i.e. gutka packets and it is denied that this respondent never informed to the opposite party No.1 about the articles which are sealed in the Beer bottle. The opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer company of Royal Challenge Beers and this opposite party used to sell the same to the customers in his shop namely M/s Santosh Wines, Shivampet. The rest of the allegations made in para are denied. The opposite party is retail wine shop. This opposite party used to seal only the beers supplies by the opposite party No.1. The opposite party is now any concerned to the manufacture defects by the opposite party No.1.
7) Complainant filed his evidence affidavit to prove the contents of the complaint and marked Ex.A1 document and M.O.1 material object (beer bottle containing gutka packet). Written arguments of complainant filed. A memo is filed by counsel for OP.No.2 counter may be treated as evidence affidavit.
The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the damages and compensation prayed for ?
Point:
8) The complaint’s case is that on 5.12.2009 he purchased six beer bottles from opposite party No.1 under Ex.A.1 receipt for Rs.360/- at the rate of Rs.60/- per bottle and found a Gutka packet in one of the bottles, therefore the seal of it was not opened and he approached opposite party No.1 and informed the same but he has taken the matter lightly and thrown the burden on opposite party No.2 stating that opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer and therefore he is responsible and opposite party No.2 is only a seller. The sealed beer bottle containing Gutka packets is marked as M.O.1.
9) Ex.A1 receipt of opposite party No.1 is dated 05.12.2009 and it stands in the name of the complainant. It was issued for purchase of six beer bottles of “ROYAL CHALLENGE” brand for Rs.360/- at the rate of Rs.60/- per bottle. Though the contents of Ex.A1 receipt are in support of the contention of the complainant, it does not contain batch number of the beer bottles purchased by the complainant. It is therefore held that the complainant has proved his case.
10) As M.O.1 contains a packet which contains the letters “DELUXE MIX ZARDA PATTI (mawa)” and as the complaint stated that is a gutka packet and as there is no contra evidence, certainly the complaint must have been shocked by a look at the gutka packet in the beer bottle. It is not known whether the contents of the said gutka packet leaked in to the beer bottle or not. If leaked, it is injurious to health of human beings. This circumstance proves negligence on the part of the manufacturer, who is opposite party No.1 and also on the part of opposite party No.2 who sold such beer bottle. M.O.1 must be said to be a defective goods and hence both the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to any damages, as he has not used the beer contained in M.O.1 bottle. In the circumstances it is held that the complaint is entitled to cost of M.O.1 beer bottle and to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.200/- of this litigation. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
11) In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.200/- towards costs of the litigation and also pay a sum of Rs.60/- towards costs of M.O.1 (beer bottle). The liability of the opposite No.1 and 2 is joint and several. One month time is granted for payment.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 13th day of September, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member/Senior Member Male Member
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
-Nil- -Nil-
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
Ex.A1/dt.05.12.2009 – Cash memo for purchase -Nil-
Of six beer bottles by the
Complainant.
MATERIAL OBJECTS
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
M.O.1 – Beer bottle of Royal Challenge Bra nd -Nil
650 ml containing batch No.11895BB
and dated of manufacture as 03.11.2009.
Sd/-
Lady member/
Senior Member
Copy to
1) The Complainant
2) The Opposite parties
3) Spare copy copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Parties On _________
Dis.No. /2010, dt.
