State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Sudesh Sharma on 6 January, 2009
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of decision: 06.01.2009 First Appeal No.475/2006 (Arising from the order dated 24.04.2006 passed by District Forum(North) Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.512/2003) Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., ..Appellant. 3-B, DLF, Corporate Bank, through Ms Rashmi Virmani S-Block, Phase -III, advocate. Qutub Enclave, Gurgaon. Versus Sh. Sudesh Sharma Respondent S/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma Village & P.O. Ujhani. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)
1. On account of having sold a cold drink by the brand name of Pepsi containing foreign substance resulting in physical discomfort and treatment by the doctor after respondent consumed the same, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 24.04.2006 found it guilty for deficiency in service and directed it to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation by way of damages and a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. Apart from this the District Forum has also imposed punitive damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund (Legal Aid).
2. Impugned order has been assailed on multifarious grounds firstly that the respondent did not disclose the date of purchase of the bottle nor did he provide proof of purchase nor did he provide particulars of the shop from where he purchased the bottle and furthermore that it does not manufacture any pepsi in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi and lastly that inspite of having sent the bottle to Forensic Science Laboratory no report was received by the District Forum as the Laboratory refused to analyse the bottle. Moreover there is no scope of entering of foreign substance in the bottle as the manufacturing process is filtered, sterilized and is absolutely clean and some unscrupulous elements in the market are illegally passing off their product.
3. Case of the respondent leading to the impugned order in brief was that the respondent purchased two bottles of Pepsi from the vicinity of ISBT Kashmere Gate, Delhi against the payment for consumption by the respondent. The respondent stated that after consuming the same he had started feeling physical discomfort resulting in colic, dyspepsia and headache and had to undergo medical treatment. Subsequently he also suffered from insomnia. The respondent alleged that as soon as he felt ill he immediately went to doctor for treatment and before going to the doctor he also inspected the concerned bottle consumed by him and he was shocked to see that there were some contaminated products in the bottle and he also found condom in other sealed bottle which was purchased by him at the same time from the same shopkeeper as stated above. The respondent further alleged that he took the medical treatment after consumption of the said Pepsi bottle but thereafter immense pain started in his abdomen and made him very lazy, unable to conduct day to day activities. The grievance of the respondent is that had the bottle been absolutely clean and there would not have been discrepancy in cleaning process in the bottling place, the complainant would not have suffered to the extent which has resulted into his physical and mental illness. The respondent has filed this complaint before District Forum alleging that there was negligence on the part of the appellant and on account of this act of deficiency on the part of the appellant, the respondent has prayed for suitable damages by way of compensation so as to mitigate his hardship in the matter.
4. In reply the appellant averred that the respondent has neither purchased the pepsi from the appellant nor hired any service for consideration and even if the respondent has purchased the said Pepsi bottle the appellant does not manufacture, distribute or sell beverages within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. By manufacturing these bottles utmost care is taken. Bottling plants which ensure very high standards of hygiene and cleanliness and not only that but the manufacturing process involves strict quality checks at various stages of manufacture. The appellant further averred that the raw material used in the manufacturing bottles is of highest grade and quality and the water used in the manufacturing process is filtered, sterilized and is absolutely clean. The appellant also stated that they have discovered increasing number of instances of bottles of spurious soft drink in the market by some unscrupulous elements illegally being passed of as Pepsi products. These bottles often contain foreign substance, since hygiene and care are the first casualties in such cases. These bottles are marketed by such unscrupulous person for illegal gains and just to malign the image and harm its goodwill and reputation. The appellant has also taken the plea that the respondent is not a consumer and there is no strict evidence produced by him before District Forum with regard to the purchase of the bottle from the area of ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
5. We have come across few cases of identical nature wherein similar pleas are being raised by the manufacturers. In our view howsoever perfect and foolproof may be the manufacturing process if the end product is found to contain any foreign substance or such material that renders the drink or eatable unpalatable or unfit for human consumption, the inference of the goods being defective have to be necessarily drawn against the manufacturer printed and prescribed on of the bottle or packaged product. If such pleas are allowed than every case of defective goods or bottled product shall get covered. That is why it is end product that is the determining criteria and not the process.
6. However, the allegation of the respondent of having purchased the bottle from ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and thereafter having felt physical discomfort and having gone to the doctor for treatment and having filed the instant complaint inspires confidence about its veracity. We have taken a view that if a person is found to be in the habit of filing such a complaint by way of blackmailing the manufacturer it should be dismissed being malafide.
7. Concept of imposing punitive damages to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- or huge amount emanates from the circumstances of having manufacturing goods or the eatables in large quantity or batches that may be found hazardous and not a solitary case as is the instant case. As per Section 14(1) of the Act a consumer is entitled to an amount as compensation for loss or injury suffered by him due to negligence of the opposite party or replacement by new goods free from defect or return of the price.
8. The object of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is not to make consumer unjustly rich by way of wind fall. No consumer can be allowed to blackmail the service provider or manufacturer by producing one or two bottles of drink having some kind of foreign substance whereas the manufacturer produces the goods in huge bulk every day.
9. Punitive damages are imposed only when a manufacturer or dealer is found guilty of having manufactured lot of goods which are either hazardous or whole lot is defective or of substandard quality, purity and potency and not in such like isolated cases.
10. So far as compensation to a consumer for having been sold a defective good is concerned Supreme Court has widened the connotation of word compensation that it includes each and every element of suffering like mental agony, harassment or physical discomfort, expected or actual loss, insult and other suffering, which a consumer suffers.
11. We have further extended this connotation by including the expenses and agony undergone by a consumer who has been forced by the service provider to approach legal forum or court to seek redressal of his grievance as forcing the consumer to seek remedy before Consumer Forum or before any other legal forum is again tortuous process as it causes further mental agony and harassment and financial pressure as nowadays the legal remedy is becoming costlier day by day and it is not only time consuming but at time harassing.
12. Legal remedies are going beyond the reach of even middle class what to talk of common man and therefore the service provider and the traders should be ready to shell out some more amount for the agony and torture suffered by the consumer in seeking redressal of grievance as in the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the redressal of grievance of consumer does not stop at the stage of District Forum i.e. at the initial stage. It continues further for years together as these rich powerful multinational organisations and mighty service providers invariably file appeals before State Commission which again takes 4-5 years and sometime 10 years and even if State Commission confirms the order of District Forum, they will go to the National Commission and if they are not satisfied at all, they can go to Apex Court and thereby putting the interest of the consumer in such a jeopardy that is unending.
13. For the foregoing reasons we partly allow the appeal by setting aside the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the District Forum as punitive damages to be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund (Legal Aid) and maintain the rest of the order. The payment shall be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
14. A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties and also to the District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced today on 06th day of January 2009.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri