Mr.M.Rajesh filed a consumer case on 23 Feb 2018 against United Breweries Ltd in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/168/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Mar 2018.
Complaint presented on: 07.10.2015
Order pronounced on: 23.02.2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
FRIDAY THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
C.C.NO.168/2015
Mr.M.Rajesh,
S/o.Mr.Manoharan,
No.20, Velayudha Pandian Street,
Old Washermenpet,
Chennai – 600 021.
….. Complainant
..Vs..
1.United Breweries Ltd.,
Rep.by its Authorised Signatory,
Level 3, 4 & 5 UB Tower,
UB City, 24 Vittal Mallaya Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.
2.The District Manager, Chennai (North),
IMFS Department,
TASMAC Ltd.,
TASCO Unit, B4 Flats Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.
3.Shop Incharge,
Shop No.3, Tasmac Chennai North,
No.50/20, Ethirajsami Salai,
Erukanchery, Chennai- 600 118.
| .....Opposite Parties
|
|
Date of complaint : 24.11.2015
Counsel for Complainant : M/s.P.Prince
Premkumar,S.Silambarasan,
R.Jayakumar
Counsel for 1st opposite party : M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
Counsel for 2nd Opposite Party : S.Muthuraj & M.Jothi Kumar
(set Ex-parte for non filing of written
version)
Counsel for 3rd opposite party : Ex - parte
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming compensation with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The complainant purchased the King Fisher Select Premium Beer on 10.01.2015 at the 3rd opposite party shop with a quantity 650 ml by paying a sum of Rs.120/-. The said beer bottle was manufactured by the 1st opposite party and it was sold by the 2nd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party shop is maintained by the 2nd opposite party.
2. The complainant about to open the beer bottle, he found heavy dust inside the bottle and not in a fit condition to drink and the same to be injuries to health. The quality of the beer manufactured by the 1st opposite party is not at all fit for human consumption. The 2nd opposite party should have taken steps to check the quality of liquor and there after purchased and sold the same in the market. Due to this the complainant suffered with metal agony.
3. The complainant sent legal notice dated 23.01.2015 to the opposite parties claiming compensation and again sent another notice dated 03.03.2015 to the 1st opposite party and another notice dated 26.08.2015 to the 3rd opposite party. However, there was no reply from them. The act of the opposite parties amounts to an unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming compensation with cost of the complaint.
4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The process consists of malting, milling, mashing, lathering, boiling & hopping, fermenting, conditioning and filtering. The glass bottles are sent to bottle washer where the bottles pass through pre washing process for removing organic waste. The bottles after travelling in caustic bath for 18 minutes and thereafter passed through water zones and water sprays to remove the loosened dirt, labels and other materials. The final and pre final rinse sprays of nine numbers are placed in such a way that the high pressure water is sprays at inside and the outside of the bottle to remove any material inside and outside the bottles. Thorough inspection is done at different stages of the brewing process, fermentation process, filtration process, and packaging process to ensure quality standards and norms are met. Further strict Internal and External Audits are performed by trained auditors both internal and external to ensure compliance to quality standards set by the company. In the meanwhile the excise authorities take samples from the uni tank and send the same for chemical examination to Regional Forensic Laboratory at Chennai. It is after the above process throughout which there is absolutely no chance of any contaminated elements to enter the beer manufactured and bottled that the product is sent to the market.
5. The 2nd opposite party places order on the 1st opposite party’s factories in the state of Tamil Nadu for supply of IMFL and instructs this opposite party to dispatch the same to its various deposits located strategically in the State of Tamil Nadu. This opposite party executes the said orders and dispatches the said product in well packed cartons. The depots in turn deploy their own transport and personnel to distribute the same to various TASMAC shops located in Tamil Nadu with due care and caution the beer was manufactured by the opposite party and he has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. The 2nd opposite party appeared through his counsel and however he had not filed his written version and hence he was set ex-parte on 05.04.2016. The 3rd opposite party though received notice and did not appear before this Forum and he was set ex-parte on 27.01.2016.
7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?
8. POINT NO :1
It is an admitted fact that the 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of King Fisher Select Premium Beer bottle and the 2nd opposite party buying those product and selling the same throughout Tamil Nadu like the 3rd opposite party shop and the complainant purchased 650 ml bear bottle at the 3rd opposite party shop on 10.01.2015 under Ex.A1, bill.
9. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties is that after purchase of the beer bottle, he found heavy dust inside the bottle which seems to be injuries to health and hence he had not opened and consumed the bear and the dust found inside the drink shows that the 1st opposite party has not taken proper care and caution in a hygienic circumstances and that is why dust was available inside bottle and the opposite parties 2 & 3 without verifying quality of the drink sold the same in the market and therefore all the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.
10. Admittedly the complainant purchased the 650 ml King Fisher Select Premium Beer on 10.01.2015 at the 3rd opposite party shop. According to the complainant he found the dust inside the bottle and the same is injuries to health and hence he did not drink. Hence he sent legal notice to the opposite parties claiming compensation and there was no reply from them, he had filed this complaint. The beer purchased by the complainant produced before this Forum and the same was sent for analysis and report received from Food Analysis Laboratory, King Institute Campus, Guindy, Chennai -32. The said sample was also analysed by them and Ex.C1 was sent to this Forum. In the said report, it is stated that dust is sediments floating over the liquid weighing and further on microscopic examination of dusty sediment shows the ‘Presence of fungus aspergillus spp’ and the analyst opined that the food is unsatisfactory and sub-standard.
11. As per the report, the beer bottle was manufactured on 03.09.2014 and should be used best before 6 months from the date of manufacturing. It means from the date of manufacturing on 03.09.2014, the same should have been used on or before 02.03.2015. The complaint was filed on 07.10.2015 in this Forum after 7 months of the expiry of the beer bottle. Any product after expiry of the permitted period to consume, the product will change its originality and may not be fit for consumption. In this case also the complaint was filed after seven months of expiry of the sample period and thereafter the sample was sent for analysis at request of the complainant, certainly the same would be sub-standard and unfit product for consumption and that is what happened in this case.
12. Further the complainant should have been catituous in filing the complaint before this Forum before the expiry of the consumption period and after expiry of the said period he had filed this complaint and only wasted the time of this Forum. In view of the above we hold that the complainant has not established that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.
13. POINT NO:2
Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23rd day of February 2018.
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 10.01.2015 | Tasmac Bill |
| |
Ex.A2 dated 20.01.2015 | Legal Notice
|
Ex.A3 dated NIL Return cover
Ex.A4 dated NIL Acknowledgement card
Ex.A5 dated 03.03.2015 Legal Notice
Ex.A6 dated 26.08.2015 Legal Notice
Ex.A7 dated 31.08.2015 Acknowledgement card
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :
……. NIL ……..
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE FORUM:
Ex.C1 dated 10.05.2016 Certificate of Analysis
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.