State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Millennium Beer Industries Ltd. ... vs 1. Naresh Kumar Son Of Joginder Singh, ... on 11 May, 2012
`STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.287 of 2008 Date of Institution: 25.01.2008 Date of Decision: 11.05.2012 Millennium Beer Industries Ltd. Daruhera, Haryana registered office No.203, Second Floor, II Community Centre Naraina Phase-I, New Delhi-110028 through its authorized person V.P. Bahuguna. Appellant (OP-2) Versus 1. Naresh Kumar son of Joginder Singh, resident of Village Budhwa, District Kurukshetra. Respondent (Complainant) 2. English Wine Shop M/s Sukhpal Singh, Railway Road, Shahbad (M), Tehsil Shahabad through its partners:- i) Amrik Singh ii) Baljit Singh iii) Sukhpal Singh c/o M/s Sukhpal Singh, Railway Road, Shahabad (M) near Chakwalia Dabha Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. Performa Respondents BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Sanjay Vij, Advocate for appellant. Respondents exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
On the oral request of the learned counsel for the appellant, the delay of two days in filing of the present appeal is condoned.
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.11.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra in complaint No.510/2007 whereby the appellant-opposite parties have been held deficient in service for supplying defective bottles of Kingfisher Bear to the complainant (respondent No.1 herein) and granted following relief:-
we accept the complaint and direct the OPS to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and deficient service. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order failing which penal action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act will be taken. It is made clear if this amount is not paid within 30 days then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 17.8.2007 till realization.
The case of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that he had purchased six bottles of Kinghfisher strong on 2.8.2007 from the opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.300/- in cash but no receipt was issued. On
2.8.2007 when the above said bottles of Beer were used, some raw material like fungus or insect was found in one of the bottle of the Kingfisher Strong Bear. Thus, the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and sought compensation by filing complaint before the District Consumer Forum.
Opposite Parties were exparte before the District Consumer Forum. District Consumer Forum taking into account the statement of the complainant, accepted the complaint and granted compensation to the complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
Heard.
At the very outset the question for consideration before us is whether the complainant can be termed as a consumer of the opposite parties?
Admittedly, the complainant has not produced any bill or receipt with respect to the purchase of six bottles of Kingfisher Strong Bear from the opposite party No.1 from where the complainant had allegedly purchased the Kingfisher Strong Bear bottles which were manufactured by the appellant-opposite party. Without there being any documentary proof with respect to the purchase of the Kingfisher Strong Bear, the relationship of consumer and supplier does not stand proved between the parties. Mere filing of the affidavit of the complainant, without there being any cogent and convincing evidence, cannot take the shape of proof. Thus, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the opposite parties. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts of the case. Hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 11.05.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member