National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Varun Beverages Ltd. vs Naveen Sethi & Ors. on 12 May, 2023
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 205 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 19/12/2019 in Appeal No. 26/2018 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. VARUN BEVERAGES LTD. PLOT NO. A-36, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SATHARIA JAUNPUR-222202 UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NAVEEN SETHI & ORS. H.NO. 2205, SECTOR 23-C CHANDIGARH 2. MUNSHI RAM DEV RAJ MAHAJAN KARYANA & GENERAL MERCHANTS, SHOP NO. 11, SECTOR 23-C CHANDIGARH 3. PEPSI CO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. 3B, DLF CORPORATE PARK, S BLOCK, QUTAB ENCLAVE, PHASE III, GURUGRAM-122002 HARYANA 4. VARUN BEVERAGES LTD. VILLAGE ASGARPUR PO GANJBAR, GT ROAD, PANIPAT-131203 HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,MEMBER For the Petitioner : MS. SHAMAN PARVEEN, PROXY ADVOCATE For the Respondent : FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 : NOT SERVED FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 : NOT SERVED FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 : NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 : NEMO Dated : 12 May 2023 ORDER
1. This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 19.12.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no. 26 of 2018 arising out of the Order dated 19.01.2018 of the District Commission in complaint no. 547 of 2015.
2. Learned proxy counsel appears for the revisionist and asks for an adjournment. A perusal of the case-file shows that the State Commission passed its impugned Order on 19.12.2019. The present revision was filed before this Commission on 03.02.2020. Notice was ordered to be issued on 13.02.2020 subject to remitting a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the respondent no. 1 (complainant) towards to and fro and allied expenses. Even till date i.e. till 12.05.2023 the respondent no. 1 (complainant) has not been served. Neither has the sum of Rs. 7,000/- been paid to him to defray travel and allied expenses. The respondent no. 2 i.e. the karyana and general merchants from where the bottle of soft drink in question was purchased has also not been served. On 19.09.2022 a co-ordinate bench ordered that fresh steps for service on respondents no. 1 and no. 2 be taken within three weeks. However steps were not taken by the revisionist and thus notice could not be issued. On 13.01.2023 a co-ordinate bench again ordered that fresh steps for service be taken within three weeks. However as per the Registry's report dated 02.05.2023 fresh address was not filed and thus notice could not be issued.
We do not deem it appropriate to allow the revisionist to procrastinate the matter any further. The request for adjournment is politely declined.
3. As the things obtain, at this stage, we deem it apt to examine the record and first judge for ourselves the merits in the revision.
4. A perusal of the record, including inter alia the respective appraisals made by the District Commission and the State Commission, shows that the matter relates to a foreign body in a bottle of soft drink. The bottle contained a plastic piece of irregular shape with some black coloured material sticking to it. It was visible with the naked eye. It was confirmed by the report of a public analyst of a government laboratory, who also opined that the soft drink sample was unsafe for human consumption.
The District Commission dismissed the complaint. It discounted the public analyst's report on ground that the sample of the soft drink was tested by the public analyst after more than one year from its manufacturing date, the quality of the soft drink cannot be determined after the expiry date, therefore it cannot be said that the soft drink was not consumable on the date of its purchase.
The State Commission overruled the District Commission. It observed that a public analyst of a government laboratory was competent to analyze the soft drink bottle in question. Bare perusal of his report shows that the soft drink bottle contained a plastic piece of irregular shape with some black coloured material sticking to it. Due to this reason it was declared unsafe for human consumption. The foreign substance was visible with the naked eye also and it has been confirmed by the report of the public analyst. The State Commission also observed that the District Commission failed to take into consideration that a foreign substance i.e. a plastic piece of irregular shape with some black coloured material sticking to it was also visible with the naked eye and has further observed that it appears that the District Commission failed to apply its mind in a proper manner. The State Commission arrived at the findings that the respondents were liable under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as well as liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for unfair trade practice and negligence and deficiency.
5. We find the State Commission's appraisal to be apt and correct. While making a de novo independent appraisal of the facts and evidence, it has also specifically pointed out where the District Commission erred.
The case is simple and straight. A foreign body i.e. a plastic piece of irregular shape with black coloured material sticking to it was present in the bottle of soft drink. It was visible with the naked eye. It was also confirmed by the public analyst of a government laboratory. When such foreign body is present in a soft drink bottle, it needs no detailed exposition that the same was unfit for human consumption. Such facts and evidence cannot be dismissed on ground that the test was undertaken after the expiry date had elapsed, as has been erroneously done by the District Commission. If such foreign body is present in a soft drink bottle, it most obviously becomes unsafe for human consumption and as such we find nothing wrong with the public analyst's opinion that "From examination of the sample herein referred to and the result obtained by analysis, I am of the opinion that the contents of the sample marked here as I-C-May 17 contain a plastic piece of irregular shape with some black coloured material sticking to it. Hence unsafe for human consumption."
We note that all the material issues germane to the matter have been aptly appraised by the State Commission and we have no hesitation in agreeing with the State Commission's findings of unfair trade practice and negligence and deficiency.
We find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned Order of the State Commission.
6. We may dwell a little on the award made by the State Commission. It has ordered the respondent no. 1 (before the State Commission) i.e. the karyana and general merchants from where the bottle of soft drink in question was purchased to refund the amount paid by the complainant for purchase of the soft drink bottle. It has also ordered the respondents no. 1 to no. 4 (before the State Commission) i.e. the karyana and general merchants and the manufacturer and the distributor to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. Additionally it has ordered the respondents no. 2 to no. 4 (before the State Commission) i.e. the manufacturer and the distributor to deposit an amount of Rs.2.5 lakh each in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh. It has stipulated that if the award is not complied with within 30 days the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of its Order till realization.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the award to be fair and reasonable. The complainant has been justly and equitably compensated for the loss and injury suffered by him. Additionally, quite obviously having regard to the unfair trade practice and the gross negligence and deficiency, amounts of Rs. 2.5 lakh each have been ordered to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission and the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh.
We do not find anything unfair or unreasonable in the award.
7. The revision fails miserably on merits. As such there is no need to trouble the respondent no. 1 (complainant).
8. Sequel to the above, the revision, being totally bereft of worth, stands dismissed. The award made by the State Commission stands confirmed.
The amount as any deposited by the revisionist with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission's Order dated 13.02.2020 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith utilized by the District Commission towards satisfaction of the award. The residual awarded amount shall be made good within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for 'enforcement' and for 'penalty', as per the law.
9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the revision and to the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ....................................J KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE MEMBER