BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present :Smt. Meena Ramanathan,B.Com.,Lady Member
Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR) Male Member
Wednesday, the 24th day of August 2011
C.C. No. 20 of 2011
Between:
Gagireddygari Venkateshwar Reddy,
S/o G. Janardhan Reddy,
Aged: 32 years, Occ: Private Service,
R/o Q.No. 720/B, BHEL Township,
Ramachandrapuram, Medak District. ……Complainant
And
Trinity Beverages Private Limited,
6/25, Sy.No. 202, Patighanpur Village,
Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. ….Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 03.08.2011 in the presence of Sri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for complainant and that of opposite party representing in person, upon hearing 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 Se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by complainant alleging that he purchased one Kingfisher mineral water bottle, one litre, for an amount of Rs.15/-, in the shop-Limra Bakery, 13-83, P.S. Road, Miyapur, Hyderabad, and the said bottle is the product of the opposite party and obtained a receipt from the shop keeper and after reaching home, found some insect part in the said bottle and after two days, he took the bottle and informed the shopkeeper which he purchased the bottle but the shopkeeper could not give any reply and simply asked complainant to approach the opposite party. That, when he wanted to drink water, and found the said insect part in the bottle: due to which, complainant was greatly surprised and suffered mental agony and averred deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly opposite party is liable to pay compensation to complainant.
It is further alleged that the complainant is a consumer and entitled for damages and the act of opposite party attracts deficiency of service and that the opposite party is so negligent in not providing quality material to its consumers and failed to serve the goods in a careful and quality manner. Hence, prayed to direct the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 95,000/- along with interest 12% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till realization towards damages; to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the complaint and pass any other order or orders.
2. Opposite party filed its counter alleging that complaint of the complainant does not constitute any “consumer dispute” and no relationship of “consumer” and “supplier of services”. They further averred that complaint is liable for rejection for non-furnishing of important particulars such as whether the bottle is purchased or brought for kind or gift, which is essential for a consumer to prove and establish. Likewise, no details are furnished as to when the bottle is purchased and that the complaint is not correct for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. It is further contended that the complaint is silent as to when the bottle was purchased and what is the batch number, date of manufacturing of the bottle, etc., and without these details, it is not in a position to give a reply. Further averred that whether the alleged bottle the complainant purchased is “sealed” and “intact” is not mentioned and that the bottle in question is not but a tampered one. There is no mention in the alleged bill and the complaint as regards to date of purchase. Without establishing the sale transaction, no liability can be fastened against them. There is no hiring or availing of services between the parties and no consideration is meted out to it and it further averred that since there is no mention of date either in the complaint or on the bill, it is not known whether the bottle in question pertains to the year 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 or otherwise. Without any date on the bill, no cause of action can be constituted for filing any complaint. And that no injury is pleaded in the complaint. And that without mentioning particulars and specific things, complainant wants a non-specific enquiry. The Consumer For a cannot make roving enquiry and it has to be concrete. The complaint is frivolous, vexatious and is a abuse of the process of the court.
The opposite party further stated that no seller would prefer to sell water bottles with insect like objects. In case, if such a case is noticed, it will be apparent to the shopkeeper as the bottle is transparent. And in that event, the opposite party would even replace the bottle and damage the entire lot of bottles manufactured in that particular batch. The claim of complainant is blatant and is vague in manner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
3. Both the parties let in evidence on their behalf in the form of affidavits reiterating the contents of the complaint and counter.
4. Complainant exhibited one document in “A” series, the opposite party exhibited certified copy of documents exhibited by complainant and marked it as Ex.B1 and MO1 is marked.
Ex.A1 is the original stamped bill for Rs. 15/-. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of Ex.A1 bill and Kingfisher Water Bottle is marked as Ex.MO1.
5. The points for consideration are
1). Whether the complainant is a “consumer” and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2). And if so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ?
3). To what relief?
6. The opposite party firmly contends that the complainant is not a “consumer” and that there arose no “consumer dispute” and that there is no “hiring or availing of services” between the complainant and them. Further, opposite party stated that the complainant is not correct for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties and not-furnishing of specific and partivulars information. And that there is no mention of date on the bill and hence no cause of action would arise in that event.
The counsel for complainant vehemently argued that the complainant is a consumer and there is a consumer dispute and that on the bottle deposited in the court, there is mention of date and other particulars.
7. Ex.B1 is the replica of Ex.A1. A perusal of Ex.A1 establishes that one G. Venkateshwar Reddy purchased one Kingfisher water bottle for a consideration of Rs. 15/- from the shop of Limra Bakery, Miyapur, Hyderabad. There is no mention as to whether the bill is for “cash” or “credit”. As contended by opposite party, there is no mention of the date on the bill; no lot number or batch number as the case may be and also no mention of date of manufacturing of the bottle. The complainant cannot take advantage or disadvantage of the other side but instead has to prove his own case. It is for the complainant to establish that he purchased the bottle from a shopkeeper and that such a shopkeeper is related to the opposite party herein such a manner. In-spite of making specific allegation in its counter by opposite party, the complainant failed to make the shopkeeper as party to the complaint for the reasons best known. The best way left to complainant was to implead the shopkeeper as party to the complaint and establish the relationship between such shopkeeper and this opposite party which the complainant failed to. The complainant failed to establish whether the bottle in question is the same bottle that he purchased from the shopkeeper and further failed to establish as to when he purchased the bottle. Without there being any date on the alleged cash/credit memo, nothing can be attributed against the opposite party. As rightly pointed out by the opposite party, the document exhibited by complainant as Ex.A1 does not specify the year, this is also in question. In such a circumstance, no cause of action would arise.
A further perusal of the bill in question shows that the alleged bottle was purchased at Miyapur of Rangareddy district. No doubt, the bottle deposited by the complainant into forum contains the date of manufacture and lot number, etc., on it. But mere deposit of bottle does not establish that it is the same bottle that the complainant purchased from the shopkeeper and that the same shopkeeper purchased the same from this opposite party unit. Without these important things being established, the complainant cannot claim any compensation on bald and vague assertions. The complainant could not establish how the opposite party is liable to answer the claim of complainant and no connection is established by the complainant regarding the shopkeeper he purchased the bottle in question and of this opposite party. In-spite of making specific allegations by the opposite party, the complainant could not bring anything on record to award any claim in his favour. In view of the matter, there are no merits in the complaint of the complainant and accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a “consumer” and there arose no cause of action to file the complaint. Even otherwise, this forum has no territorial jurisdiction except for the reason that the opposite party is situated within the territory of this forum. Accordingly, we answer the points 1 and 2 in favour of the opposite party and against the complainant.
8. Point No. 3: In the result, we dismissed the complaint of complainant but the parties to bear their own costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 24th day of August, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For Complainant: For Opposite parties:
Affidavit of complainant filed affidavit of opposite party
as evidence. Filed as evidence.
WITNESS EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite parties:
-Nil- -Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant: For Opposite parties:
Ex.A1/dt.-Nil- Original bill without date. | Ex. B1/dt.-Nil- Certified copy of Ex.A1. |
M O 1: Kingfisher water bottle.
Sd/-
LADY MEMBER
Copy to
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.parties
3) Spare copy
