BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

C.C.No. 356 of 2015.

Date of Instt.: 18.12.2015.

Date of Decision: 27.03.2017.

Sameer aged 27 years son of Sh.Subhash Chander, Caste Bishnoi, resident of House No.858, Sector-3 HUDA, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.     

                                                                             ..Complainant 

  Versus

1.Varun Beverages Limited village Ali Assarpur, P.O.Ganjbar, G.T.Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103.

2.Mitraan Di Chattri (Sudhir Godara) Confectionary Sector-3 HUDA Fatehabad, Haryana 125050.

                                                                        ..Opposite parties.

              Complaint under Section 12 of CP Act

Before:                 Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                             Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present:                 Sh.Mohit Boora, Advocate for complainant.

                             Sh.Kapil Nagpal, Advocate for OP No.1.

                             OP No.2 exparte.

ORDER

                              Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased 2 glass bottles of soft drinks (Slice) containing 200 ml. each  bearing batch No.BN953A30F15 & BN935A30116 with date of manufacturing as 30.06.2015 & 30.09.2015 for a sum of Rs.24/- from OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1. It has been further averred that the purchased soft drinks were not consumable as there was some poisonous/unwanted contents (in black & green colour) in the same and it can be easily seen with naked eyes. It has been further averred that had the complainant consumed the poisonous contents then he could have lost his eye sight as well as hearing power and even his life also would be in danger. It all happened due to negligence of the Ops, therefore, the complainant got served legal notices upon them to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- alognwith costs of bottles besides cost of litigation expenses but in vain.  Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1, documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5.

2.                          On notice OP No.1 appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing its reply taking several preliminary objections such as maintainability, suppression of material facts, complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer and cause of action etc. It has been further submitted that the present complaint has been filed with malafide intention as the bill attached with the complaint bears the date as 18.11.2015 whereas the complainant had sent the legal notice on 10.11.2015. Moreover, the acknowledgement issued by OP No.2 is not an invoice/bill because it does not bear batch number and date of manufacturing etc. therefore, present complaint has been filed just to harm the goodwill and brand name of OP No.1.  It has been further submitted that the bottles have not been tested from any laboratory, therefore, there is nothing on the case file to show that the bottles were having impurities. The process of manufacturing of bottles is full proof and there is no scope of entering of any foreign particle in the bottles, therefore, question of alleged impurities or containing foreign material in the same does not arise at all because soft drinks are manufactured in modern sophisticated plants having high standard of hygiene and cleanliness. The complainant has not suffered any damage and he cannot seek compensation only on imaginary thoughts. It has been further submitted that the present complaint has been filed just to extract money because the complainant has claimed exorbitant amount as compensation. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No.2 did not appear before this Forum despite issuance of notice, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated  22.01.2016. In evidence the OP No.1 has tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3 on the case file.

 3.                         Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP No.1 reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                          Arguments advanced by counsels for the parties have been duly considered, evidence led by the parties and documents on the record of the file have also been perused. We have also seen the impugned bottles of cold drinks alleged to be contaminated. A contaminated substance/ foreign object is clearly visible in the bottles from the naked eyes. Therefore, it is well established that contents in the impugned glass bottles of cold drinks are contaminated, spurious or sub-standard. Therefore, the contents of the bottles were not needed to be sent to the laboratory for chemical examination. The samples of the impugned bottles were sent to the laboratory to examine as to whether the seals of the bottles are tampered or not. However, despite due efforts the examination report of laboratory could not be obtained. Thereafter, keeping in view the statement made by the complainant on 03.03.2017 the case was proceeded further. Now, the main issue to be decided by this Forum is as to whether the impugned contaminated bottles were sold by OP No.2 and manufactured by OP No.1 or not. To prove its contention that the impugned/contaminated bottles were purchased from OP No.2 the complainant has tendered in evidence the Acknowledgement/receipt Annexure C5. However, a perusal of Annexure C5 reveals that no batch number of the bottles have been mentioned on it. Only an amount of Rs.24/- has been shown. Further perusal of Annexure C5 (receipt/acknowledgment issued by OP No.2) reveals that the cold drinks were purchased on 18.11.2015 whereas the complainant had sent the legal notice OPs prior to the date of purchase i.e. 10.11.2015 as is evident through Annexure C3 & Annexure C4. We are of the considered opinion that Annexure C5 is not cogent, authentic and sufficient piece of evidence to prove that bottles in dispute were sold by the OP No.2. No evidence has been produced by the complainant to connect the OP No.1 with the manufacturing of bottles in dispute. Onus is upon the complainant to prove that the spurious/contaminated bottles of cold drinks involved in the present case were manufactured by the OP No.1. It is a thing of common knowledge that the products of brand companies are sold through a large network of distributors and dealers. These products are in high demand and on a number of occasions the products are found to be spurious which may not be the act of manufacturing company. Moreover, since the cold drinks alleged to be purchased by the complainant were not consumed by him as such no injury or loss or harm has been caused to him. Therefore, the compensation amounting to Rs.2 lacs sought by the complainant is exorbitant, imaginary, without any basis and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 

5.                          In view of the discussion as made above we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops and as such the present complaint is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:27.03.2017

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)

                                                                       President,

(Ansuya Bishnoi)                                Distt.Consumer Disputes

      Member,                                                 Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.