DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 8^th  day of February 2013

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

            : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

            : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member           Date of filing: 14/06/2012

(C.C.No.105/2012)

Kaladharan,

S/o.Subramanian,

Pettakkad,

Pampampallam Post,

Kanjikode, Palakkad                            -       Complainant

(By Adv.U.Suresh & K.Dhananjayan)

V/s

1.The Retail Shop Manager,

   Kerala State Beverages

   Corporation Ltd.,

   (Kerala Govt.Undertaking),

   Retail Shop No.

   Walayar Post, Walayar,

   Palakkad

   (By Adv.Raghudas.S.G)  

2.The General Manager,

   United Breweries Ltd.,

   Kanjikode West Post,

   Palakkad.

  (By Adv.Ranjit Unni)                          -        Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

The complainant has purchased 4 bottles of King Fisher Strong Beer containing 650ml in each bottle from 1^st opposite party paying Rs.220/- as total price. i.e.Rs.55/- per bottle which is being manufactured by 1^st opposite party. The complainant has purchased the 4 bottles of beer for his personal consumption.

When the complainant has opened the three bottles one by one he has found some black sediment with filthy substance spread and percolated  on the inner side bottom of the bottle with the beer. When the complainant had looked the other beer bottle without opening it,  he had also seen the same sediment with filthy substance spread and percolated over the beer. The complainant stated that the black sediments and filthy substance reveals the spurious and substandard quality  of the beer manufactured and packed by 2^nd opposite party and sold and supplied by 1^st opposite party. The existence of strange and foreign substance in the beer bottle is an act of deficiency of service committed by opposite parties. The complainant is convinced  that  the beer contained in the bottles are of substandard quality and is unfit for human consumption. Then the complainant has sent a lawyer notice to opposite parties demanding Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for the deficiency in  service committed by the opposite parties. But the opposite parties had not sent any reply. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

The opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The alleged purchase of a beer bottle from 1^st opposite party is unsupported by documentary evidence. The 1^st opposite party has not sold any beer in such condition. The 1^st opposite party is not a sole seller of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, there are private Bar hotels, KTDC and Consumer Fed also  conducting the same business. The 1^st opposite party has no any liability with the claim of the complainant. Since they solely  selling good, hygienic and perfect beverages. It is true that 1^st opposite party has received a lawyer notice and the same was sent to the head  office for taking further action  since the 1^st opposite party is an employee of the K.S.B.(M&M)C. They had under an impression that the head office has taken steps against the lawyer notice. Thereafter  the 1^st opposite party had not sent reply to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party is not liable to pay any compensations and damages to the complainant.

After produced the bottle of beer before the Forum by the complainant, the 1^st opposite party filed additional version stating that the security label is seen tampered. Further stated they will issue an invoice /bill at the time of each sale. The complainant is not seen produced the invoice / bill. Therefore the produced bottle is purchased from somewhere else and no where connected with 1^st opposite party. Hence, 1^st opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

The 2^nd opposite party admitted that they are the leading manufacturers of Beer and other brands of liquor of International quality marketed worldwide known for their insistence on quality of highest standards. Further 2^nd opposite party stated that their product are dealt with and marketed exclusively through 1^st opposite party who are their sole selling agents of their products in Kerala. 2^nd opposite party stated that they market the products through 1^st opposite party with a clear mention on its label that their products have only a shelf  life of 6 months. There is no deficiency  of service or unfair trade practices on the side of 2^nd opposite party. Also 2^nd opposite party is an unnecessary party and the complainant should be made liable  for the cost of them. Hence 2^nd opposite party prayed that complaint dismiss with cost.

Both parties filed their affidavits. Ext.A1 series marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 & B2 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Ext.C1 is the report issued by the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory Department. DW1 is the witness examined on the side of the 2^nd opposite party. 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. In Ext.C1 dated 16/11/12 reported that the sample was found to be contaminated with sediments  and hence unfit for human consumption. According to the complainant, he purchased 4 bottles of “King Fisher Strong Beer” containing 650ml in each bottle from 1^st opposite party paying Rs.220/- as total price, which is being manufactured by 1^st opposite party. The complainant has not produced evidence to show that he has purchased 4 bottles of beer for an amount of Rs.220/- manufactured by 1^st opposite party. But the 2^nd opposite party admitted that they are the leading manufacturers  of beer and they market their products through 1^st opposite party who are their sole selling agents of their products in Kerala.

In the memo filed along with the beer bottle complainant stated that bottle  consisting  of 650ml of King fisher extra strong beer bearing B.R.No.456 and barcode No.8901020 165002 dated 18/01/12 K69. Both opposite parties had not produced any contradictory evidence. Moreover the opposite parties had not cross examined  the complainant to prove that the bottles not purchased with  them. In Ext.B2 mentioned that MFD : 18/01/12 Batch No.K69 “the articles have been examined under my personal supervision with the report dated 26/12/11 that all the samples were found to be free from noxious ingredients injurious to health hence fit for human consumption”.

DW1 deposed that before bottling itself samples will be taken by Excise Department and sent to Chemical Laboratory. In short sample will be taken in a batch No. and sent to Chemical Laboratory for chemical analysis.

 In Ext.A1 series the lawyer notice dated 4/2/12 mentioned that he purchased beer from 1^st opposite party on 26/1/2012. The opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that they sent reply. The complaint filed before the Forum on 14/06/12. The manufacturing date of the beer as per Ext.B2 is on 18/1/12. So the complainant purchased the beer and filed the complaint within 6 months. According to the 2^nd opposite party they market their products through 1^st opposite party with a clear mention on its label that their products have only a shelf  life  of 6 months. So the complainant  found the existence of strange and foreign substance in the beer bottle is within 6 months.

DW1 deposed that one day production is a batch and 2.5 lakhs bottles will be in a batch. Further deposed that “each bottles bears the expiry date, it means it can be consumed any day before  the expiry date. The sediments in the bottle are not the proteins and is only filthy substance is wrong”. But the opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that it is not unfit for human consumption. 

In Ext.C1 report dated 16/11/12 mentioned that the sample was found to be contaminated with sediments and hence unfit for human consumption. But the opposite parties had not produced contradictory evidence. Moreover the opposite parties  not examined the  Assistant Chemical Examiner to prove that it is unfit for human consumption after 6 months.

2^nd opposite party admitted that they are the manufacturers and their products are dealt with and marketed exclusively through 1^st opposite party. The complainant has not produced evidence to show that he had incurred damages for 5 lakhs. Moreover, the complainant has not produced evidence to show that he drank the beer and hospitalized. The complainant stated that he opened the three bottles one by one and found some black sediment. But the complainant has not produced evidence to show that the sediments found in four bottles.

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 8^th day of February 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  series – Copy of lawyer notice dtd.4/2/12  issued by the complainant to

                       the opposite parties  alongwith postal receipt and

                       acknowledgement card.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Authorization letter dated 13/1/13  

Ext.B2 – True copy Certificate of Chemical analysis issued by Jt.Chemical

              Examiner, Kakkanad dtd.26/12/11   

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

DW1 – Sriram.M

Commission Report

Ext.C1 – S.Sheela Das, Asst.Chemical Exaimner.

Cost

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