Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Facts giving rise to present appeal in short are as under:-

Complainant Shyam Sharad Gumte is resident of Goregaon, Mumbai. He claims himself to be consumer of opponents. M/s.PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt.Ltd. is the manufacturer of cold drinks. Opponent no.1 is the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt.Ltd. Opponent no.2- Smt.Shirin V.S. works as a Manager at M/s. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt.Ltd. Opponent no.3- Shiv Shankar Sharma runs Society Medical and General Stores shop bearing nos.6 & 7 at Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai. The complainant is an advocate by profession. On 31/12/2008, complainant had purchased two bottles of cold drinks and some medicines from the opponent no.2 for an amount of Rs.110/-. The complainant had purchased cold drinks for the celebration of New Year party. He had invited guests and children for New Year party. He found that there were some foreign particles (fungus) in the bottle of cold drink Leher Pepsi. Complainant had been to opponent no.3/ dealer and lodged his complaint. He had requested opponent no.3 to change the bottle of cold drink Pepsi. However, opponent no.3 refused for the same. Complainant was abused and threatened by opponent no.3. Therefore, complainant had lodged complaint in police station. At police station, non cognizable offence was registered. The complainant had brought sale of unfit and defective product to the knowledge of opponent nos.1 & 2 by sending notice. However, the opponents refused to accept the notice. It is alleged by the complainant that cold drink was not distributed to the children on seeing foreign particles inside the Pepsi bottle and, therefore, unwanted unforeseen incident could not occur. Opponent nos.1 & 2 are the manufacturers of cold drink Pepsi. They have manufactured the cold drink, which is not fit for human consumption. The product manufactured by opponent nos.1 & 2 was duplicate. Complainant is entitled for claiming compensation. Therefore, complainant had filed consumer complaint before the Learned District Forum and claimed an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation and amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation.

4. Opponent nos.1 to 3 have resisted the claim by filing independent written statements. Opponent nos.1 & 2 have submitted that consumer complaint is not maintainable. Complainant cannot be said to be consumer of opponent nos.1 & 2. He has no right to claim compensation from the opponents. The cold drink in the bottle purchased by the complainant was not consumed by the complainant or by anyone. Therefore, there is no question of causing any injury, hurt or damage. The complainant does not establish that the cold drink in the bottle purchased by the complainant was manufactured by opponent nos.1 & 2. Opponent no.1 is a reputed company. The product prepared by opponent no.1 passes through various tests. It is impossible to send cold drink to the retailer having foreign particles /fungus. The bottle of the cold drink was lying for long time. Therefore, there was a possibility of formation of fungus. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. It is possible for the consumer to tamper with the product of the cold drink. Consumer complaint is filed with a view to extract amount and it is liable to be dismissed with costs.

12. Complainant/respondent purchased the bottles of cold drink for the programme at his house. The programme was arranged to celebrate the New Year party. Some guests with children were invited for the party. However, foreign particles/fungus was noticed in the bottle. The bottle was sealed bottle and foreign particles can be seen by naked eyes. The conduct of respondent no.1was that he rushed to the retailer's shop of respondent no.2 for change of bottle of cold drink. Respondent no.2 refused to change the bottle of cold drink. Hot altercations were taken in the shop.

17. The cold drink was analysed by the Public Analyst by keeping in view the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. To impose punishment under Food Adulteration Act, 1954, all technicalities are to be fulfilled. Here we are dealing with the case in a quasi civil matter as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are dealing with the matter as quasi judicial authority. The Learned District Forum after considering the rulings relied upon by the appellants/opponents properly arrived at the conclusion that cold drink bottle purchased by the complainant was unfit for consumption due to presence of foreign particles/fungus and said report had binding effect. The Learned District Forum rightly discussed the rulings relied on by the appellants. Complainant/ respondent after purchase of cold drink bottle immediately noticed foreign particles. It is duly proved by the respondent on the basis of report of public analyst that purchased bottle of cold drink was unfit for consumption. Fortunately, the cold drink was not consumed by the children, invitees or by the family members of the respondent/complainant and, therefore, injury to health was not occurred. However, complications might have been arisen on consumption of unfit cold drink. Only because no injury was caused to the family members of the complainant or invitees, it cannot be said that complainant/respondent is not entitled for claiming compensation. With this view, we hold that the order passed by the Learned District Forum is just, legal and correct. It requires no interference. As a result, appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order:-