State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Avinash Kumar on 6 December, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 63 / 2007
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
A company duly incorporated under Companies Act
having one of its plant at Tehsil Hapur
District Ghaziabad and having one of its plant at
Kotwali Road, Nazibabad through its Authorised Signatory
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Avinash Kumar S/o late Sh. Jagat Bahadur Singh
R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Arya Nagar Chowk
Jwalapur, District Haridwar
.....Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Adarsh Jain, Propreitor New Neha Agency
Industrial Area, Haridwar
.....Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
3. Proprietor Shiv Kumar Confectioners
Near Chandi Ghat Ropeway
Haridwar
.....Respondent No. 3 / Opposite Party No. 3
Sh. T.S. Bindra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
None for Respondents
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 08.02.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing the consumer complaint No. 169 / 2003 and directing the opposite party No. 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in Consumer Welfare Fund. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. All the opposite parties were 2 also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- jointly and severally as cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Avinash Kumar purchased a bottle of 500 ml. of Coca Cola cold drink from M/s Shiv Kumar Confectioners, Haridwar - opposite party No. 3 (for short "seller") for Rs. 18/- on 09.08.2002. Before opening the bottle, he noticed that some filth was floating in the bottle. So he asked the seller to take back the bottle, but the seller did not take it back and said that he would talk to the company - M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (for short "company"), who manufacture the cold drink in the brand name of "Coca Cola". Inspite of several visits to the seller, no result came out. Ultimately, the seller behaved with the complainant very rudely by saying that he sells the cold drink and does not manufacture the same and that the complainant can do whatever he wants. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, which was allowed by the District Forum per impugned order in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the company has filed this appeal.
3. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on record.
4. The main contention of the appellant is that it could not be proved either by the complainant or the whole seller - opposite party No. 2 or the retailer - opposite party No. 3 that the bottle was sold by the company either directly to the retailer or through the whole seller. It has been submitted that a spurious drink can be refilled in original bottle, so the batch number etc. is irrelevant. Further, the procedure 3 laid down under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has not been followed, because no sample was taken from the complainant for laboratory test. The appellant has also said that it was not verified whether the drink was consumed within a period of two months or not.
5. We have considered the said submissions. The contention of the appellant in respect of the procedure laid down under Section 13 of the Act, is not acceptable, because the said bottle was sent to the Public Analyst and the report dated 09.03.2004 of the Public Analyst, also confirmed that the drink was contaminated and had fungus.
6. But we are of the view that the complainant, whole seller and the retailer, failed to prove that the said bottle was supplied by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant can not be held liable for selling contaminated cold drink.
7. For these reasons, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 08.02.2007 of the District Forum, 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 Nos. 2 and 3, shall pay the compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant, as directed by the District Forum. Cost of the appeal made easy.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) Kawal