State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satish Kumar vs Rajesh Kumar on 10 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA. First Appeal No. 1443 of 2007 Date of Institution: 4.6.2007 Date of Decision: 10.09.2010 Satish Kumar son of Sh. Om Partap resident of village Kabarchha, Tehsil Narwana, Distt. Jind. Appellant/ Complainant. VERSUS 1 Rajesh Kumar son of Om Parkash, Prop. Kaushik Store village Kabarchha, Tehsil Narwana, Distt. Jind. 2 Parbhat Trading Co. Distributor of Pepsi near Model Town, opposite Luxmi Cinema Narwana, Distt. Jind through its partner ShVinam Kumar. 3 M/s Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd. 301 Sector 9-D Chandigarh through its authorized signatory Manager manufacturer and distributor of Pepsi. Respondents/ OPs. BEFORE:- Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member.
Sh. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Present:- Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents-opposite parties.
O R D E R:
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN, PRESIDENT:
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 12.4.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind whereby the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant with respect to supply of inferior quality of cold drinks (Pepsi) has been dismissed.
It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased eight bottles of Pepsi from the opposite party no.1 against the payment of Rs.64/- vide receipt dated 23.8.2003. According to complainant some filthy waste material was noticed in a bottle of Pepsi purchased by him from the opposite party no.1, which was injurious to health. The grievance of the complainant is that in case the above said cold drink (Pepsi) bottle had been consumed by the complainant or any other family members, the same could have harmed the life of its user. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement they admitted the sale of Pepsi bottles to the complainant, but denied any kind of deficiency of service with the averments that the company beverages the bottles of cold drink in an automatic plant for which statutory and prudent precautions such as cleaning, water and sterilization with highly sophisticated computerized manner of international quality is used and after testing and verification of the bottles, the same are supplied in the market.
During the pendency of the complaint a bottle of Pepsi cold drink was produced before the District Forum and the same was got tested in the Lab of Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh. The report given by the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh Ex.C3 has been produced on record and relevant portion of the same are reproduced as under:-
1 Physical appearance:- Brown coloured liquid in one sealed glass bottle of Pepsi 300 ml with loose and dented crown cork of Pepsi bottle is broken at the top of the mouth. Quantity of sample is also less than 300ml. Sample has lot of suspended matter/sediments.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum did not find any substance in the version of the complainant and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal.
Heard.
The perusal of the record it is seen that while dismissing the complaint the District Forum has taken into consideration the report Ex.C3 received from Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh wherein it has been mentioned that the sample bottle of the Pepsi was having a loose and dented crown cork and the bottle was broken at the top of the mouth and the quantity of the sample was also less than 300ml. Thus, as the seal/crown cork of the bottle in question was loose as well as it was dented having less quantity of Pepsi cold drink; therefore, it was taken a suspected sample with tampering. Therefore, the opinion given by the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh in its report Ex.C3 is of no help to the complainant, because the sample bottle of Pepsi sent to the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh was in tampered condition. The District Consumer Forum had no other option to send the sample in the same condition as it was presented before us for sending the same to the office of Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.
10th September 2010. Justice R.S. Madan, President.
Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member.
Diwan Singh Chauhan, Kr. Member.