BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.

Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1152/2016

Complaint filed on 10.03.2016

Date of Judgement.06.05.2017

PRESENT                                : 1. Shri Ramachandra  M.S.,  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                        PRESIDENT

                                       2. Shri  Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B., 

                                          MEMBER

Complainant/s               :                  1. Mr. B.R. Harish,

Byalaru village, Deburu post,

                                                             Nanjangud Taluk.

                                                         (Sri Lokesh B.N., Advocate)                                                   

V/s

Opponent        /s                     :       Manager, United Spirits Ltd.,

                                                          Registration Office, U.B. Towers,

                                                          24, Vital Malya Road,

Bengaluru-560001.

                                                          (Sri H.S. Kumar., Advocate)                                                  

 SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,

 PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

The complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking for the relief  of compensation and such other relief as prayed in complaint.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant is resident of Nanjangud taluk , Mysore District, on 06.01.2016 complainant purchased MAC Dowell whisky, label no 5583905779 from MSIL opposite party shop and in the button of the bottle he found dust and other waste particles . On seeing this the complainant intimated the same by way of complaint to the opposite party for which the opposite party did not respond. Hence this complaint seeking for the relief of compensation as prayed in the complaint.

3. The notice to the opposite party duly served and represented by counsel, filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to dismissed. Opposite party further contended that the averments made in para 1 of the complaint is hereby denied as false and further contends the opposite party does not admit  defect in manufacturing of the liquor in the opposite party company.

4. Opposite party contends that the opposite party is the no.1  manufacturer of alcohol in India, before the goods reach to the customer the company will take at most care and caution about the products manufactured by them, in such event opposite party denies the alleged deficiency in service on their part.

5. Further opposite party denies all the allegation of complainant and prays for the dismissal of complaint.

6. The complainant and opposite party has filed the examination in chief affidavit and also documents in support of their contention. Heard arguments perused documents, reserved for orders.

7. The points that arise for our consideration are;-

1. Whether the complainant prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party by selling contaminated and adulterated bottle of whisky to the complainant, and thereby proves that he is entitled for relief sought?

2. What order?

8. Our answer to the above points is as follows;

Point No.1:  In the Negative.

Point No.2: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

9 . Point No.1:-  That as per the averments of complaint and documents produced by complainant from these facts it is clear that the complainant purchased one MAC Dowell whisky bottle from opposite party MSIL shop and he found dust and waste particles in the bottle,  when the same was reported to opposite party, did not respond for the same.

10. Further the complainant in order to prove his allegation  against  opposite party did not produced the said bottle of whisky before the fora for examination at the same time complainant also failed produce any report of approved laboratory,  in respect of  presence of dust and waste particles which was found in the bottle and it was purchased from opposite party shop. In the absence if any of these efforts, attempts to proves his claim by complainant in the complaint. On perusing all these we are of the opinion that the complainant has totally failed to discharge his burden of proof in order to prove his claim beyond reasonable doubt against opposite party.

11. Further the initial burden of proving the allegation lies on the complainant who alleged and claims deficiency against opposite party shop. When complainant has utterly failed to discharge his  burden of proving his own allegation.

12. Under these circumstance we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove his case, on account of his failure to prove his own case, He is not entitle to get the relief from the hands of this fora.  When such being the case the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

13. For the above reasons by looking at the facts and documents produced by complainant, have miserable failed to  prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and also complainant  has failed to prove that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party by doing unfair trade practice.

14. According this forum we answered Point no.1 in the negative and pass the following:

15. Point no.2:- For the above discussion we here by proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

2. Give the copies of this order to the parties as per Rules.

(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed , typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the  6^th  May 2017)  

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

          Member.                                                             President.