CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                                  Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.184/10

 

Saturday the 28^th day of May, 2011

 

Petitioner                                              : Shibu Kumar V.R.

                                                             Veliyil Puthen veedu,

                                                             Edakadathi PO,Parakadavu,

                                                             Kottayam. 

                                                             (Adv. P.P. Joseph)

 

                                                        Vs.

Opposite party                                     : 1) Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd,

                                                                    Thiruvalla.

                                                                   (Adv. Menon & Pai)         

                                                               2) Kerala State Beverages Corporation

                                                                   Shop No.05009, Erumeli.

                                                               3) Sankar Reddi IPS,

                                                                    Managing Director,

                                                                    Kerala State Beverages Corporation,

                                                                    O/o KSEB (H.Q), Sasthamangalam,

                                                                   Trivandrum.

                                                                   (Adv.OP 1&2 M.T. Babu)                       

                                                           

 

 

            The complainant’s case is as follows.

 

            The complainant purchased 1 ltr.Javan liquor from Beverages Corporation Erumeli on 27/7/10 for Rs.230/-. When the complainant took it for consumption he saw a dead spider in the bottle and the said matter was informed to Erumely Beverages and after that it was informed to the opposite parties customer care number. The alleged matter came in newspapers also. The complainant alleged that the presence of dead spider in the liquor bottle is due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Hence he filed this complaint claiming Rs. 1 lakh as compensation.

            Notice was served to the opposite parties. All the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their versions. The 1^st opposite party filed version with the following main contentions.

1)      The product manufactured by the 1^st opposite party is subjected to tests and checks. Each batch of liquor that is manufactured and stored in covered blending tanks is bottled after obtaining a chemical analysis report from the Chief Chemical Examiner, Trivandrum. Before the liquor is passed through the vacuum filling machine, it is filtered in the sparkler filter in order to ensure that there are no foreign particles present. The bottles are also checked manually in order to ensure that there are no foreign bodies in the bottles. So there is no scope for any foreign body to enter the bottles.

2)      The bottle could have been tampered with by the complainant himself. The opposite party never received any complaint from the complainant to the effect that the liquor manufactured contained a foreign body. Had such a complaint been made, appropriate action could have been taken by this opposite party, if the complaint is genuine.

3)      The complainant has not suffered any loss or injury so as to maintain a claim for compensation towards the expected loss which the complainant would have suffered had he consumed the liquor. It is submitted that such an imaginary claim for damages is not legally maintainable. 

4)      It is for the complainant to establish that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party and that as a consequence thereof, loss or injury was suffered by him. The complainant has not made out any such loss or injury and hence the claim for compensation is not maintainable.

Hence the 1^st opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.

The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party filed version together with the following main contentions.

1)                          These opposite parties deny the contentions of the complainant that the bottle of liquor purchased from the 2^nd opposite party contained dead spider. No complaint was brought to the notice of these opposite parties till date by the complainant. The allegations of the complainant against these opposite parties are the result of the conspiracy between the complainant and some interested person who intend to tarnish the reputation of these opposite parties among the public.

2)                          The Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited, in which the opposite parties are employed, holds the FL1 License for the retail sale of liquor in sealed form in the state including the FL1 shop at Erumely. It is expected that the instant allegation is at the instance of affected parties of the locality who conspire with the complainant in order to tarnish the reputation of these opposite parties in the public.

3)                          The complainant has not produced the best evidence in the first opportunity for establishing his case. The bottle could have been tampered with by the complainant

4)                          The 1^st opposite party adopts the best standards in the production and storage of IMFL. Each batch of liquor produced are subject to chemical examination by the state owned Chief Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory at Trivandrum. These opposite parties purchased the products from the 1^st opposite party in sealed conditions and sold it through our retails shops in the same condition.

5)                          These opposite parties are not at all responsible for any damages if any caused to the complainant since they have no role in manufacturing, bottling, sealing and packing of the product. No complaint was preferred before any authorities. The complainant in the instant case has not suffered any loss or injury so as to make any claim for compensation and hence he is not legally tenable.

Points for considerations are:

i)Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and Ext.A1 toA3 and Ext.B1 to B6.

            Heard both sides and perused the documents placed on record. The opposite parties submitted that the products manufactured and bottled was subjected to various tests and checks and the liquor is filtered in the sparkler filter before passing through the vacuum filling machine. The opposite parties further submitted that as they are following such stringent norms, there is no scope for any foreign body to enter the bottles. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties contented that the allegations of the petitioner against the opposite parties are the result of conspiracy between the petitioner and some interested persons who intend to tarnish the reputation of these opposite parties among the public. The liquor bottle was produced before the Forum in a sealed condition, containing dead spider in it. It was perused marked as MO1 and returned. Then how can the alleged presence of spider inside the sealed bottle be the result of conspiracy between the petitioner and some other persons. Further nothing is placed on record by the opposite parties to prove their allegations that the bottle could have been tampered by the complainant himself.

            The counsel for the opposite party argued that the petitioner has not suffered any loss or injury so as to maintain a claim for compensation towards expected loss which the petitioner would have suffered, had he consumed the liquor. The learned counsel submitted that the imaginary claim for damages is not legally maintainable. In our opinion consumption is not a must. The sight of a dead spider inside the liquor itself is an irritable and unbearable situation. And in any case, non consumption of the liquor does not absolve, the opposite parties of its duty towards consumers to ensure that the liquor which is unfit for human consumption is sold.    The opposite parties submitted that it is for the petitioner to establish that there was negligence and that as a consequence thereof, loss or injury was suffered by him. In our view it is not necessary for the petitioner to establish that there was negligence because the bottle was produced before the forum in a sealed condition containing spider in it. In all probability the presence of dead spider could have been caused at stages of manufacturing or storage by the manufacturer. Presence of spider clearly shows that the 1^st opposite party is not maintaining any standard of hygiene. So we find 1^st opposite party manufacturer deficient in their service. We are of the view that the interest of justice will be served if compensation of Rs. 5000/- is allowed. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed.

            The 1^st opposite party will pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the awarded sum will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of May, 2011

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

                       

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

           

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-                

 

Ext.A1-Copy of the receipt for Rs. 230

Ext.A3-Newspaper dtd 29/7/10

MO1-Liquor bottle containing dead spider in it

Ext.B1-Copy of the invoice dtd 16/7/10

Ext.B2-Original certificate issued by Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.

Ext.B3-Original goods received sheet

Ext.B4-Original letter dtd 16/7/10

Ext.B5-Copy of certificate of chemical analysis

Ext.B6-Original goods transfer note

Ext.B6(a)-Original label statement

 

By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.