State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Gaurav Mehra S/O Sh. Kamla Kishor Mehra, ... on 31 May, 2012
F.A. No. 1329 of 2007 1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
PLOT NO. 1037, SECTOR 37-A DAKSHAN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1329 of 2007
Date of institution : 1.10.2007
Date of decision : 31.05.2012
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Enkay Towers, Udyog Vihar V,
Gurgaon,Haryana.
...Appellant
Versus
Gaurav Mehra S/o Sh. Kamla Kishor Mehra, R/o 164/6, Katra Hari Singh, Near
Jangi Shivala, Amritsar.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 13.6.2007
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Amritsar
Before:-
Sh. Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member.
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate
For the respondents : Ex-parte
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.6.2007 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum") vide which the complaint of the respondent was partly accepted.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent purchased 2 crates of Limca and Coca Cola from M/s Shri Ram Desert Corner, Khoo Bombaywala, Amritsar (O.P. No. 1 before the District Forum) but not impleaded in the appeal hereinafter "The Retailer" on 2.6.2006 for Rs. 270/- vide bill/receipt No. 71 for domestic use and for offering the same to the relatives and other guests. It was pleaded that the appellants are manufacturer of the said cold drinks whereas Amritsar Crown Caps Pvt. Ltd, G.T. Road, Jandiala Guru (O.P. No. 3 before the District Forum, but not impleaded in the appeal) hereinafter called the "Bottler" was the local authorized dealer of the appellants. F.A. No. 1329 of 2007 2
3. It was further pleaded that out of the cold drinks purchased by the respondents, 7-8 cold drinks were consumed by family members as well as relatives and when one kid of the family took the Limca bottle to drink, he saw one empty medicine wrapper inside the bottle which was quite apparent/visible from the outside of the bottle itself. The complainant/respondent approached the Retailer and complained about foreign material lying inside the bottle and also approached the Bottler and requested them to stop the sale of the said cold drinks which may have potentiality of endangering the life of the consumer. But they flatly refused to listen to the requests of the complainant/respondent.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellants had not adopted proper procedure in manufacturing the cold drinks and filling the same without taking proper care which resulted in presence of foreign material in the bottles of cold drinks. As such they were liable for the damages they have caused to the consumers. In the present case, had the kid or any other family member of the complainant/respondent consumed the questioned cold drink, he might have suffered some serious problem.
5. Hence the complaint before the District forum seeking directions to discontinue the deficiency in service on its part by paying Rs. 95000/- as compensation/damages to the complainant/respondent and that the plants of appellant/local retailer sealed and ceased for the aforesaid reasons.
6. Upon notice, the Retailer filed written statement in which it was admitted that he sold two crates of Limca and Coke to the complainant/respondent for a um of Rs. 270/- vide bill No. 71 dated 2.6.2006, but pleaded that these bottles were sold by him in packed and sealed condition and therefore he was not, at all, responsible for any kind of defect in the bottles and submitted that the complaint be dismissed qua the retailer.
7. The appellants filed separate written statement in which preliminary objections were taken that the appellants are not the manufacturer of the beverages in the area of Punjab. The Punjab area fell within the ambit of F.A. No. 1329 of 2007 3 franchisee operations. The Local Dealer is manufacturer and the distributor of the beverages under the authority and license of The Coca Cola Company in Punjab territory. It was further pleaded that the complainant/respondent has alleged that there was deficiency in service but has not explained, reasons for making such false allegations. Since the contents of the bottle is questionable and therefore, the entire complaint based on that becomes questionable and baseless in the eyes of law. Moreover, assuming but not admitting, that there is valid dispute in controversy the burden of proof clearly lies with the complainant to prove his case that the allegation is a genuine one. However, in his zeal to file a complaint in haste, the complainant arrived at the inference that due to the presence one empty medicine wrapper in the content of the package, the package has become unhygienic, the consumption of which is a health hazard, without even going through the process of laboratory analysis of the sample. It was further pleaded that the licensed bottlers (local dealer) have big plants for manufacturing clean, hygienic and quality beverages. The appellants specified detailed procedure which is followed at the time of bottling of the cold drinks by which the quality and hygiene of the contents are ensured. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
8. The local dealer, inspite of notices, did not appear before the District Forum and thus was proceeded against ex-parte.
9. Learned District Forum after going through the pleadings of the parties and the material on the record, partly accepted the complaint of the complainant/respondent and directed the appellant, the retailer and the local dealer to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant/respondent. Their liability to pay the compensation was held as under:-
Rs. 4000/- will be paid by O.P. No. 1 (the retailer) and Rs. 6000/- will be paid by the appellant or jointly by appellant and O.P. No. 2 (local dealer) in addition Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses were allowed.
10. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants have come up in appeal. F.A. No. 1329 of 2007 4
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants have filed the detailed reply before the District Forum but the same was not considered/discussed by the learned District Forum. It was further submitted that appellant only supplies the concentrate and is not responsible, what so ever, Bottling, packaging and the marketing of the same which the responsibility of the Bottler i.e. opposite party No. 3. It was further submitted that the appellants does not prepare, package, distributor and sell limca in 300 M.L. bottles which is done independently by local bottlers. The appellants only manufactured, concentrate and beverages bases of limca etc, therefore it sells concentrate and Beverages Bases to the authorized bottlers of the Coca Cola company in India on a principal to principal basis. It is the bottlers who prepares, packages, bottles and sell beverages. Therefore the appellants cannot be held liable for any irregularities, if any, committed by the Bottlers.
12. Submissions have been considered. Record has been perused.
13. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent purchased two crates of Limca/Coca Cola from the retailer on 2.6.2006 against receipt No. 71. One bottle out of the sold lot was found containing foreign particle by the respondent/complainant. The retailer, who sold these crates of the complainant/respondent has admitted the same. The same bottle of the cold drink was produced before the District Forum which was duly inspected by the District Forum and the presence of the foreign particle (strip of medicine) was confirmed. Since the foreign particle, present in the bottle, was apparently visible, no further proof is required for the same. However it has not been pleaded or proved whether the contents of the bottle were hazardous or unsafe for the human consumption nor it is pleaded whether the persons who consumed 7-8 bottles of cold drink from same lot suffered any problem. But the fact remains that the foreign particle was existing in the bottle, which is sufficient evidence to show the negligence on the part of the agency who filled the bottles. F.A. No. 1329 of 2007 5
14. The appellants have categorically contended that they do not prepare/package/distribute and sell Limca in Punjab and they only manufacturer, Concentrate and Beverages Bases for Limca etc and sell these Concentrate and Beverages Bases to authorized bottlers of the Coca Cola Company in India. We find merit in this contention of appellant. Evidently cold drinks were prepared and bottled at the plants of the local dealer. This fact has not been controverted by the Local Dealer that the bottling was actually not done by them.
15. In view of above discussion and findings we hold that the appellants are not directly or indirectly responsible for the foreign particle detected in the bottle. The nature of the foreign particle was such that it can only enter in the bottle at the time of bottling. Accordingly the appeal of the appellant is accepted. However, M/s Amritsar Crown Caps Pvt, Ltd (O.P. No. 3 before the District Forum) is held responsible for the foreign particle detected in the bottle of beverages. The order of the District forum is modified to the extent that out of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to the complainant/respondent, Rs. 6000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 1000/- will be paid by O.P. No. 3 i.e. M/s Amritsar Crown Caps Pvt. Ltd. only.
16. The appellants have deposited Rs. 4000/- at the time of filing of the appeal i.e. on 1.10.2007. The amount of Rs. 4000/- be remitted to the appellant by way of crossed cheque/bank draft after expiry of 45 years.
17. The arguments in this case were heard on 29.5.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER May 31, 2012.
Rupinder F.A. No. 1329 of 2007 6