DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.606 of 01-10-2014
Decided on 10-09-2015
Rachhapal Singh S/o Hardeep Singh R/o H.No.29773, St.No.13, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.The Managing Director of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited, 3rd Floor, Orchid Centre, DLF Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India.
2.The Director of Wave Beverages Pvt. Limited, 14 K.M. Stone, Amritsar-Jalandhar, G.T Road, V & P.O. Nawan Kot, Near Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar.
3.Kishore Brothers, through Proprietor Address-St.No.6, Nai Basti, Bathinda, Punjab.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.R.P Singh, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.N.K Batta, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Vikas Singla, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.
ORDER
M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-
1. The complainant Rachhpal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties The Managing Director of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in the last week of August, 2014, he has purchased Sprite-500 ml @ Rs.30/- per bottle from opposite party No.3 at Bathinda. When the complainant was about to serve the said soft drink to his guests, he noticed that in one bottle of Sprite, there was some plastic or jelly type substance and lots of dead aunts. The said unhygienic solid substance and aunts existing in the bottle might have caused serious illness to the complainant, his family members and guests, if they would have consumed the same. Besides this, the complainant had to face humiliation before his guests.
3. It is alleged that due to deficient service and lack of service of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental and physical agony from their hands besides financial loss. The complainant prayed for following reliefs:-
a) Refund of amount paid to purchase the Sprite bottle;
b) Compensation of Rs.40,000/- for deficiency in service
on their part;
c) Compensation of Rs.40,000/- for causing mental
agony, pain and harassment;
d) Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses including counsel's
fee.
4. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their separate written version, whereas none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were taken against opposite party No.3.
5. In written version, opposite party No.1 raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of the parties. Opposite party No.1 is not connected with the complainant regarding deficiency in service. There is no such position nor designation by the name of Managing Director of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. The complainant has filed this complaint against opposite party No.1 with malafide intention and ulterior motives of extracting money from it. As such, the complaint deserves dismissal against opposite party No.1.
On merits also, opposite party No.1 controverted all the material averments and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
6. In written version, opposite party No.2 raised the legal objections that the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer and he has never purchased the alleged bottle of Sprite 500 ml. from opposite party No.3 and has not placed on file any bill regarding its purchase. This complaint is not maintainable in its present form and complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint against opposite party No.2. The complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands, rather he has intentionally concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. That complicated and intricate questions of fact and law are involved in this case, which require voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses, which is not possible before this Forum in the summary procedure. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant.
On merits also, opposite party No.2 controverted all the material averments and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
7. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.
8. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C4); copy of bill, (Ex.C2) and Sealed bottle of Sprite, (Ex.C3).
9. Opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajender Prashad Dimri dated 25.7.2015, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence.
10. Opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarun Paul dated 24.7.2015, (Ex.OP2/1) and closed the evidence..
11. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file carefully.
12. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their version as set up in their respective pleadings and detailed above.
13. It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant that bottle in question is before this Forum, which proves that it is manufactured by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and jelly like substance is clearly visible in it. Of-course, the bill produced by the complainant is in the name of Vijay Kumar, but the fact is that such like article can be purchased through any representative also. It cannot be held that the complainant is not consumer only for the reason that the bill is in the name of Vijay Kumar. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have failed to produce any test report to justify their stand. Therefore, the complaint be accepted.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the complainant has firstly to prove that he is consumer of opposite parties. It is not the case of the complainant that he purchased bottles through Vijay Kumar. No bill in the name of the complainant is placed on file to prove that he purchased the bottles. When the complainant has failed to prove that he is consumer, he cannot claim any consequential relief.
15. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.
16. It is well settled law that before getting any relief under 'Act', the complainant has to prove himself as consumer and complainant has to prove his case as per the stand as taken by him in the complaint. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased the bottles of Sprite in the last week of August, 2014 from opposite party No.3. It is not the case of the complainant that he purchased these bottles through Vijay Kumar. The bill, (Ex.C2) shows that the bottles were purchased by Vijay Kumar on 17.8.2014 and not in the last week of August, 2014. The bill, (Ex.C2) proved that the complainant is not consumer of opposite parties. When the complainant has failed to prove that he is consumer of opposite parties, he cannot claim any other relief under 'Act'.
17. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. The bottle in question be destroyed after expiry the period of filing of appeal/revision and subject to result of appeal/revision, if any.
18. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.
19. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
10-09-2015
(M.P Singh Pahwa)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
