State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
J.A.Kirasi Gori,Tanjore District. vs M/S South Indian Bottling Company ... on 30 January, 2014
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K. ANNAMALAI, M.A.M.L.,M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member
Thiru.S. SAMBANDAM, B.Sc, Member
F.A.No.241/2012
(F.A.No.866/2011 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chennai.)
(Against the order in C.C.No. 36/2010 dated 20.04.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Thanjavur)
THURSDAY, 30th DAY OF JANURAY 2014.
J.A.Kirasi Gori,
S/o John Bosto,
300, Moopanar Nagar,
Chettimandapam,
Kumbakonam,
Tanjore District. Appellant/Complainant
Vs
1. M/S South Indian Bottling
Company Pvt.,Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
B.163, B.170, SIPCOT,
Gangaikondan,
Growth Centre,
Tirunelveli-627 352. 1st Respondent/1st Opposite Party
2. M/S New Raja Maligai,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Thiruvidai Marudhur Road,
Chettimandapam,
Kumbakonam. 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : Mr.S.Mahendran, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent-1/Opposite Party-1 : Mr.T.Vijayabaskar, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent-2/Opposite Party-2 : In person
2
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 18.12.2013 and upon
perusing the material records of both sides, this Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant purchased four Fanta soft drinks for Rs.32/- on 19.05.2008 from the 2nd opposite party store for which the 1st opposite party being the manufacturer and supplier of the soft drinks, the complainant found "Pan Parag Sachet" in one bottle and when complainant asked to replace, the 2nd opposite party refused to replace the same with other one and thereby after giving legal notice the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties for unfair trade practice claiming Rs.25,000/- as compensation, Rs.500/- as costs and also refund of Rs.8/- towards cost of soft drinks.
3. The opposite parties denied the allegations and contended that the soft drinks are prepared in an Hygienic with strict quality control automatic procedure and there was no possibility for entering foreign material and the complainant purchased four bottles and after obtaining receipt for the same he asked for the replacement of one bottle and since no other bottle is available he was asked to bring the same after ten days in order to get replacement from the company since the 2nd opposite party purchased those products from one Halima agencies, who is the dealer of 1st opposite party.
3
4. The District Forum after an enquiry, on the basis of both sides materials came to the conclusion that the complainant's contentions are unacceptable in view of the process followed in the manufacturing of the soft drinks by the 1st opposite party there was no possibility of entering Pan Parag Sachet with such big size into the bottle not possible and thereby the complainant case was not proved and dismissed the complaint.
5. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the complainant filed this appeal by contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without taking into considerations of the complainant's materials.
6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the appellant side contended in the written submissions that the District Forum failed to observe that when the foreign object is visibly found there is no need for sending the same for chemical analysis and it is possible in finding such foreign substances before pre-inspection stage of filling up bottles and thereby appeal to be allowed.
7. The respondents/opposite parties' even though received notice for appearance, 1st respondent was represented by their counsel and the 2nd respondent appeared in person. The respondent-1 already filed written arguments whereas the respondent-2 neither filed written arguments nor advanced oral arguments and remained absent when the appeal is taken up for hearing. Hence the order being passed on merits on the basis of both sides materials placed before us.
4
8. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant purchased four Fanta bottles on payment of Rs.32/- from the 2nd opposite party for which the 1st opposite party is the manufacturer and explained the process of manufacturing of the soft drinks with modernized machineries, automatic filling procedure, screening of tests products being produced with the process of washed by the bottles pre-rinse caustic sections with three soaks, final rinse and thereafter various chemical tests filling, crowning, coding and pre-inspection quality control, inspection and thereafter sending for marketing. etc., By way of filing documents under Exhibits B1 to B5 and in the photograph under Exhibit B4 the process of manufacturing and filling of the soft drinks stage by stage are explained and Exhibits B1 to B3 are the certificates issued by the companies relating to the food safety system by Netherlands country. From these documents and as per the details under Exhibit B4, we are of the view that the foreign material like Pan Parag Sachet pocket which is bigger than the small hole of the mouth of the bottle of soft drinks could not be entered in it in the manner of aforesaid process while manufacturing or filling the soft drinks in the automated process and this could have been possible after marketing of the product from the factory in the middle way while reaching the dealer and in this case the 2nd opposite party said to have purchased the same under Exhibit B5 from Halima Agencies and that Halima Agencies was not added as a party to prove that they have supplied original products obtained from the 1st opposite party. Further under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant 5 as a consumer failed to take necessary steps to prove his case by sending the contaminated bottle for analysis and to prove that the alleged soft drink purchase was originally manufactured by 1st opposite party alone.
9. Eventhough the complainant purchased the disputed drinks on 19.05.2008 he filed the complaint only during the month of April 2010 without approaching the Forum immediately to prove the bonafideness and genuineness of the complaint eventhough the complainant filed the complaint in time, we are of the view that the District Forum by considering all the facts from both sides materials passed well-considered order in which we find no need for any interference and thereby the appeal deserves to be dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum, Thanjavur passed in C.C.No.36/2010, dated 20.04.2011. No order as to costs in this appeal.
Sd/-S.SAMBANDAM, Sd/-A.K.A.ANNAMALAI, Member. Presiding Judicial Member. INDEX: YES/NO AMS/Mdu.Bench/Orders- 2014/Jan.