Date of filing:10-08-2011
Date of order:25-04-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 200/2011
Dated this, the 25th day of April 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Jossy Joseph, } Complainant
S/o.Charely, Urukuzhiyil House,
Nellimotta, Po.Kottody,
Munnar Village, Hosdurg Taluk.
(In Person)
The Proprietor, } Opposite party
Imperial Spirits Ltd,
Govindapuram.Po. Palakkad Dt. 678507
(Adv.Ranjit Unni & PV.Jayarajan, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
In nutshell the case of the complainant is that the One litre Mansion House Brandy manufactured by opposite party that he purchased through the retail out let of Kerala State Beverage Corporation from Bandadka for `467.66 contained a foreign body and as a result he could not consume it in its entirety as due to the consumption of small quantity he felt trouble in his stomach and he could not go to work for 2 days. Hence the complaint claiming compensation and costs with the refund of the price of the liquour.
2. According to opposite party, complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties since Kerala State Beverage Corporation has not been made a party. On merits they contended that they blends and bottles various IMFL brands and in making of IMFL they sticks to very fool proof manner and the bottles are thoroughly washed using rinsing machine to ensure that there is no impurities or foreign bodies inside the bottles and it is filled with liquour, the bottles would be capped and would be sent for inspection and at the inspection table sufficient lighting is made to see that the bottle doesnot contain any impurities. Thereafter it will be dispatched as per the requirement of Kerala State Beverage Corporations Ltd and their officials affixes the hologram label on the cap of the bottles. The complainant’s version that he found the foreign body insider the bottle after opening the bottle is false, unbelievable and suspicious. The complaint is unsustainable, once the security lable certified by the Excise Commissioner has been broken they have no responsibility since the sale is made by KSBC Ltd. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. After filing version both parties adduced evidence. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A3 and MO-1 marked. On the side of opposite party the bottling officer of imperial spirits, the manufacturer of the liquour filed affidavit as DW1. Both witnesses subjected to cross-examination by the respective counsels.
3. Ext.A1 is the copy of the bill issued from the retail outlet of KSBC Bandadka which shows that on 03-04-2011 two bottles of MH Brandy F (Mansion House Brandy Full) worth `940/-(including the cess) is purchased from that out let. Ext.A2 is the copy of the lawyer notice and Ext.A3 is the acknowledgement.
4. The points arises for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
3. What is the order as to costs and compensation?
5. Point No.1 : Learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the Kerala State Beverage Corporation is the seller of the liquour in dispute and once the bottle is transferred to their custody the liability of the manufacturer i.e. the opposite party ceases and therefore the KSBC Ltd is a necessary party to the proceedings.
6. This contention is not sustainable since the complainant has got a specific case that the liquour which he purchased contain a foreign body inside it and as a result of the consumption he suffered. He has no case that KSBC Ltd has done any unfair trade practice with respect to the sale of liquour. Therefore this point is found against opposite party.
7. Point No.2. : The learned counsel for opposite party contended that if the bottle is once opened then the liability of the manufacturer ceases with respect to the contents in it as there is chances for tampering. But the MO-1 the liquour bottle is produced before us. On opening the external cap it is seen that there is an inner sealed cap, and liquour can be poured without removing the permanently fixed inner cap and therefore it is impossible to put something inside the bottle without tampering the inner sealed cap. In this regard the learned counsel for opposite party further contended that the hologram of the Excise Commissioner Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation is seen affixed horizontally on the bottom of the external cap and usually the hologram sticker will be affixed vertically covering the external lid. But to prove that it is the usual procedure neither the Excise Commissioner nor any of the officials of Excise Department is examined. Further on a close scrutiny of the seal it is seen that the hologram sticker originally affixed is not tampered with. Hence it is clear that the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party is not true and the opposite party is solely responsible for the Foreign body found inside the liquour. Therefore we are of the view that there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in manufacturing and bottling liquour containing foreign body.
8. Point No.3: The case of the complainant is that as a result of consuming liquour containing foreign body he felt trouble in his stomach and he could not go for work for 2 days and he is claiming the refund of the price of the liquour `466.66 with a compensation of `10,000/- and cost of `500/-.
9. Though the complainant has not produced any document to prove that he suffered for 2 days we did not find anything to reduce his claim as it is a reasonable one.
10. It is the right of every consumer to get good products for the price he paid. Fortunately the complainant has not sustained any serious illness out of consuming the liquour which contained a foreign body. The result would have been worse if the foreign body was toxic causing serious health hazards. Therefore the complainant is entitled for the compensation and cost he prayed.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund `467.66 towards the price of one litre MH Brandy with a compensation of `10,000/- and a cost of `500/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which `10,000/- will carry interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Bill issued by Opposite party
A2. 04-04-2011. Copy of lawyer notice.
A3. Acknowledgement card
PW1. Josy Joseph
DW1. A. Sureshkumar
MO-1liquour bottle(MH Brandy
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
