State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Sudhir Vashishtha on 6 December, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 07 / 2007
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
A company duly incorporated under Companies Act
having one of its plant at Kotwali Road, Nazibabad
through its Authorised Signatory
Sh. Atul Kumar Jain S/o late Sh. S.P. Jain
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Sudhir Vashishtha S/o Sh. S.C. Sharma
R/o 234, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL
Ranipur, Haridwar
.....Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Sangam Confectioners, New Haridwar Colony
Near Chandra Acharya Chowk, Jwalapur
District Haridwar through its Proprietor
Sh. Rakesh Kumar
.....Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. T.S. Bindra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Respondent No. 1 Present Himself
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 06/12/2008
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2006 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing the consumer complaint No. 289 / 2003 and directing the opposite parties to deposit sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in Consumer Welfare Fund and to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant; Rs. 24/- as cost of the cold drink and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation, within a period of one month from the date of the order.2
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Sudhir Vashishtha purchased two bottles of the cold drink "Maaza" from M/s Sangam Confectioners, Haridwar for Rs. 24/- on 12.06.2003. One of these bottles was given to Sh. Rajeev Saini, his friend. When the complainant was about to open the second bottle for himself, he noticed an insect in the contents of the bottle. His friend Sh. Rajeev Saini, on seeing the insect in the cold drink, started vomiting and went to a doctor for treatment. The seller, instead of compensating for this agony suffered by him and his friend, misbehaved with them. Upon this, a consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Haridwar, which was decided by the District Forum per impugned order in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No. 1 - M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of the said cold drink, has preferred this appeal.
3. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 - complainant in person. We have also perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Forum, before holding the appellant liable for supplying contaminated cold drink, had not followed the procedure laid down under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also not ascertained whether the contents of the said bottle, were actually manufactured / prepared by the appellant. The bottle was not produced along with the complaint and it was in the custody of the complainant. It has also been submitted that the bottles of the appellant, are bottled in a state of art bottling plant, leaving no chance of the presence of any insect or foreign material. It has also been stated by the appellant that in 3 several instances, it has come to light that the bottle, the crowns / caps belonged to the appellant, but the contents were spurious, being refilled by some unscrupulous persons.
5. The complainant - respondent No. 1 reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint.
6. We have considered the respective submissions. In our opinion, the complainant failed to prove that the said bottle was supplied by the appellant to the opposite party No. 2. The presence of an insect like thing in the bottle, has also been confirmed by the District Forum, when the same was presented before it. As stated by the appellant, if can not be ruled out that some unscrupulous person had refilled bottle with a drink of inferior quality, because such news generally appear in the newspapers and FIR's have also been lodged with the police by the reputed manufacturers of the beverages, like the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any lawful reason to hold the appellant liable for selling such a contaminated cold drink. However, the seller - opposite party No. 2 has failed to prove that the said bottle was not sold by it and that it did not contain any such insect like material.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 07.12.2006, in so far as against the appellant, is hereby set aside and the appellant is absolved of its liability to pay any sum in whatsoever form it may be. The respondent No. 2, shall pay the compensation; cost of the bottle and cost of litigation to the complainant, as directed by the District Forum. The direction given by the District Forum to the opposite parties to deposit sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in Consumer Welfare Fund is also set aside, keeping in view that the purchase was for sum of Rs. 24/- only and the 4 complainant had not consumed the contents of the bottle. Cost of the appeal made easy.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) Kawal