State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Praveen Rana vs Managing Director, M/S Varun ... on 6 March, 2023
FA/1152/2014 DOD.:06.03.2023
MR. PRAVEEN RANA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 24.12.2014
Date of hearing: 04.11.2022
Date of Decision: 06.03.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 1152/2014
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. PRAVEEN RANA,
S/O MR. JAI SINGH RANA,
R/O H.NO. 359-B, V&PO KHERA KALAN, DELHI.
(Through: Mr. Swaranjeet Singh & Associates)
... Appellant
VERSUS
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S VARUN BEVERAGES LTD.,
PLOT NO. 2, SURAJPUR BY-PASS,
GREATER NOIDA-201306, U.P.
(Through: Bajaj & Bajaj Associates)
2. M/S NEW LOOK GENERAL STORE,
THROUGH ITS PROP./PARTNER,
3609, SHYAM BHAWAN,
NETAJI SUBHASH MARG, NEW DELHI.
... Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 6
FA/1152/2014 DOD.:06.03.2023
MR. PRAVEEN RANA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: None for the Parties.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:
"....complainant alongwith one of the friend had gone to Netaji Subhash Marg on 24.3.13, where he had purchased Mountain Due, 600ml from the OP No.2 in order to quench thirst and took ships from the Mountain Due, his friend also took a ship from the same, however, when the drink came below the level, it was revealed that the mountain due contained foreign elements, which was immediately brought to the notice of OP-2. It is alleged that then OP-2 provided the helpline number and asked complainant to call the customer care helpline number. It is alleged that the complainant contacted the OP-1 over phone two times even he left a message after the beep but no action was taken by the OP-1. Thereafter the OP-2 sealed the said bottle and handed over the same to the complainant. It is alleged that after seeing no response coming from the OP-1 even after lodging his complaint, complainant issued a legal notice to the OPS on 25.3.2013 but no reply has been received from the OPs. It is alleged that the complainant had submitted Test report/expert opinion from Food Safety Department in which it revealed that the sample is unsafe because it contains two dead insects. It is alleged that complainant is an advocate and has undergone undue harassment and torture as well as mental and physical agony on account of having foreign elements in the mountain Due manufactured by the OP-1 and sold by the OP-2, therefore, it is an unfair trade practice on DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 6 FA/1152/2014 DOD.:06.03.2023 MR. PRAVEEN RANA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.
their part. Complainant prays that O.Ps be directed to pay cost and compensation as claimed."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 02.12.2014, whereby it held as under:
"We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of Ld. Counsel of the complainant. The complainant had got the sample of the Mountain Dew tested in the Food Laboratory of Department of Food Safety, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The Food Laboratory has analyzed the contents of bottle and given the report "sample is unsafe because it contains two dead insects". The complainant has not filed any evidence that OP-2, the retailer from whom the complainant had purchased the Mountain Dew bottle had purchased the same from the authorized dealer of the manufacturer OP-1 or the manufacturer OP-1 itself nor the complainant has mentioned any particulars of the said bottle like name of manufacturer, batch No., date of manufacture etc. The complainant has also not proved by way of any evidence that the said bottle was manufactured by OP-1. Therefore, OP-1 cannot be held liable for any negligence. However, the bottle has been purchased by the complainant from OP-2 and allegedly OP-2 has sealed the bottle after the complaint of the complainant, if any liability of selling defective article lies that lies with OP-2 i.e. retailer who sold the said bottle to the complainant. In view of these facts, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be met if OP-2 is directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant. Ordered accordingly. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission failed to establish the deficiency on the part of DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 6 FA/1152/2014 DOD.:06.03.2023 MR. PRAVEEN RANA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.
Respondent no. 1. The Counsel further contended that the District Commission failed to consider the multitude of evidence that was presented before it while deciding the compensation as the report from the Food Laboratory, Department of Food Safety, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has been filed by the Appellant, wherein the department stated in its report that the 'sample is unsafe because it contains two dead insects'.
4. Per contra, the counsel for the Respondent no. 1 has filed the reply and submitted that the present Appeal has been needlessly filed by the Appellant with the sole intension of causing wrongful loss to the Respondent no. 1. On the other hand, the Respondent no. 2 failed to file the reply to the present appeal.
5. Thereafter, both the parties have filed their written arguments in order to support their contention.
6. We have perused the material available on record.
7. A perusal of record reflects that the Appellant alongwith his friend, purchased a 600 ml bottle of beverage namely 'Mountain Dew' from the Respondent no. 2 to quench his thirst. However, after consuming a portion of the said bottle, the Appellant found some foreign object in said bottle against which, he made a complaint to the Respondent no. 2, who afterwards sealed the bottle and handed over it to the Appellant. The Appellant had it examined by the Food Safety Department, which, after reviewing the samples submitted in its report that 'sample is unsafe because it contains two dead insects'. Thereafter, the complaint was filed before the District Commission, wherein the Appellant failed to establish the deficiency on the part of Respondent no. 1 as no evidence has been filed by the Appellant DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 6 FA/1152/2014 DOD.:06.03.2023 MR. PRAVEEN RANA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.
in order to prove that the said bottle was manufactured by Respondent no. 1. However, as the bottle was purchased by the Appellant from the Respondent no. 2, therefore, the liability was fastened upon the Respondent no. 2 and the Respondent no. 2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as cost and compensation to the Appellant vide Judgment dated 02.12.2014.
8. Further, perusal shows that the Appellant failed to establish any deficiency on the part of Respondent no. 1 before the District Commission as well as before this Commission as the Appellant nowhere mentioned any particulars of the said bottle like name of manufacturer, batch no. details, date of manufacture etc. in order to determine the deficiency on part of the Respondent no. 1. Moreover, no photographs of the alleged bottle has been furnished by the Appellant before this Commission as well as before District Commission in order to check the manufacturing Company details. Therefore, devoid of any evidence, no deficiency on the part of Respondent no. 1 can be established.
9. In terms of the aforesaid, we find no merits in the appeal filed by the Appellant and uphold the judgment dated 02.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi.
10. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 6 FA/1152/2014 DOD.:06.03.2023 MR. PRAVEEN RANA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.
judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On: 06.03.2023 DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 6