State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sanjeev Kumar vs M/S Coca Cola Co And Ors on 5 January, 2011
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA-9. ---- FIRST APPEAL NO.214/2009 DATE OF DECISION: 5.1.2011. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar son of Sh. Julfi Ram Sharma, resident of Village and P.O. Chambaghat,Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. Appellant/Complainant. Versus 1. M/s Cocal Cola Company, 1 Coca Cola Plaza, Atlanta GA 30313 U.S.A. through its Managing Director cum Incharge. 2. M/S Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Village Katha, Baddi, P.O. Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. through its Managing Director/Director and General Manager. 3. M/S Standard Sweet Shop, The Mall, Solan, near D.C. Office Solan, H.P. through its Proprietor. 4. Aradhana Soft Drink Company, 19-A Sector-1, Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. subsidiary of Pepsi Cola through its Partner/proprietor. Respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon,ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Presiding Member.
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellant: Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: None for respondents No.1,3 and 4.
Ms Reena Deepak, Advocate, For respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R:
Per Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member:
1.
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Solan, passed in Consumer Complaint No.119/2006, dated 8.5.2009, whereby the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,000/- as damages to the appellant for causing physical and mental agony. In addition to this, they were also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that the appellant had purchased six bottles of Fanta (soft drink) from respondent No.3 on 5.7.2006, vide bill No.584 for personal consumption. Respondent No.2 is the manufacturer of soft drink. When the appellant was about to consume one of the bottles, then he found some foreign particle visible inside the same.
Thereafter, he approached respondents No.2 & 3 and brought the said fact to their notice, but that was no avail.
3. Further averments in the complaint are to the effect that the aforesaid bottles of cold drink were manufactured by respondents No.1 & 2 and they were not fit for human consumption and by manufacturing and selling the contaminated soft drinks, the respondents have indulged into unfair trade practice and compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- had been claimed by the appellant for offering hazardous drinks for sale in the market. In this background, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed for deficiency of service against the respondents.
4. The Forum below in the present case had allowed the complaint and directed the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,000/- as damages to the appellant for causing physical and mental agony and direction was also given for payment of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation by placing reliance upon the report of the Public Analyst, whose report depicts that the sample of Fanta sweetened carbonated beverage is not fit for human consumption due to the presence of empty polythene pouch of sudershan brand gutkha.
5. Appellant in the present case had filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Forum below, which as per appellant is too meagre keeping in view of the gravity of the matter.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as respondent No.2, however, none appeared on behalf of respondents No.1, 3 & 4.
Ms Anupama Sharma, Advocate, Counsel for the appellant argued that in the present case keeping in view the gravity of the matter since as per report of the Public Analysis, the contents of the solf drink were not fit for human consumption as it contains empty polythene pouch of sudershan brand gutkha. As such, the appellant should have been awarded atleast Rs.1,00,000/- as exemplary compensation in the present case.
7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we are of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Forum below is most inadequate keeping in view the gravity of the matter since foreign material viz. empty polythene pouch of sudershan brand gutkha was found in the sample of Fanta (soft drink) and as such as per opinion of the Public Analyst, the contents of the soft drink, Fanta, was not found fit for human consumption, hence, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the damages of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the District Forum are too meagre and deserve to be enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and respondents No.1 & 2 being manufacturer and bottlers of said drink are held liable to pay the aforesaid amount which is exemplary and punitive one so that in future they ensure that what quality which they claim is also practiced by them and no bottle of cold drink containing foreign material is sent by them in market for sale. This view of ours is supported by the judgment of this Commission in the case of National Consumer Protection Research Centre (Regd.) and another Versus Pepsi Foods India and others, Original Complaint No.26/2002, decided on 11.1.2007 and the decision of the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in the case of Sameer Bhardwaj (Dr.) Versus Aradhana Soft Drinks Company & Ors., II (2010) CPJ 47 and another decision of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Moon Beverages Ltd. Versus Vinod Gupta & Ors., II (2010) CPJ 7. We further feel that out of the total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, 50% amount should go to the complainant/appellant and remaining 50% should be deposited in the account of legal aid fund of this Commission.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, appeal is accepted and as a result thereof, compensation awarded by the District Forum below is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- to meet the ends of justice and it is also directed that out of the said amount of compensation, 50% i.e. Rs.50,000/- shall go to the complainant and remaining 50% shall be deposited in the account of legal aid fund of this Commission by respondents No.1 & 2 who are held liable jointly and severally. The needful is ordered to be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which respondents No.1 & 2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of present appeal i.e. 4.7.2009 till its realization. We further order that the respondents No.1 & 2 shall be liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation instead of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the District Forum below. With these modifications, the appeal stands disposed of.
Learned Counsel for the parties present have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per rules and the office shall supply the same to respondents 1, 3 & 4 by post.
Shimla, January 5, 2010.
( Saroj Sharma ) Presiding Member.
( Chander Shekhar Sharma ) Member.