State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Moon Beverages Ltd vs Sri Vinod Gupta on 8 January, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 08.01.2010 Appeal No. FA-08/322 (Arising out of Order dated 12-02-2008.passed by the District Consumer Forum-VII, LSC, Sheikh Sarqi, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.862/2006) M/s Moon Beverages Ltd. Appellant Through its Authorised Person/MD A-32, Site-IV( India)/ Sahihabad District Ghaziabad-201 101, Uttar Pradesh (A Unit of Coca Cola Company as Manufacturer under the Authority of Coca Cola Comp. Versus 1. Sri Vinod Gupta Respondents S/o Late Sri K.P. Gupta, R/0 RZ/81A/332, Gali No.10, Madanpuri, West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046. 2. Sri Surender Babu Gupta Prop. Of Gupta Cold Drinks (Gupta Khokha & Tea Stall) Street No.6, Mahipalpur Extn., National Highway-8, New Delhi. 3. M/s. Kohli Soft Drinks(P) Ltd. Authorised Distributor of Coca Cola Company, Through its Authorised Person/MD, Khasra No. 647-648, Ghitroni, New Delhi-110030. 4. The Coca Cola Company-1, Through its Director/GM, Coca Cola Plaza, Atlanta. GA-303313 USA. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Mr. M.L. Sahni Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi(Oral)
1. The respondent complainant purchased four bottles of Maza drinks manufactured by appellant OP-3 company from the shop of OP-1 Sri Surender Babu Gupta, the distributor of which is OP-2 M/s. Kohli Soft Drinks(P) Ltd. and in one of the bottles two dead Flies were discovered, fortunately before consumption. The respondent complainant claimed compensation of an amount of Rs. One lac and litigation cost from the opposite parties and the District Consumer Forum awarded Rs. 5,000/- to him as damages to be paid by OP-2 and directed the OP-3 manufacturer company appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. One lac with State consumer Welfare Fund(Legal Aid New Delhi).
2. The OP-3 manufacturing company has come in appeal.
3. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing. We have heard the respondent complainant Sri Vinod in person, and perused the record including the Memo of Appeal very carefully.
4. It is a case of ab initio loquitur, the manufacturer company has to be held responsible and the District Consumer Forum was fully justified in its award.
5. One of the contention raised by the appellant in its Memo of Appeal was whether the matter could be decided without leading oral evidence? In a case of this nature when the facts speak for themselves which gain support from the bottle and the documents, no further evidence is required especially in absence of any evidence from the side of OP-3.
6. The other argument is that the dispute is not covered by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. This is an argument of despair, because, if such cases are not covered by Consumer Protection Act, then, no case will be covered under Consumer Protection Act.
7. The next question in the Memo of Appeal raised is that the award(penalty) is not fair and reasonable. We do not see any unreasonable or unfair feature in the award.
8. It was further argued that the manufacture appellant is not responsible. Who else will be responsible if the manufacturer is not responsible? The contention is without merit.
9. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
10. No further order is to cost.
11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
12. Announced on 8th day of January, 2010.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (M.L. Sahni) Member ysc