Consumer Complaint No: 28/2008

Date of presentation: 24/01/2008

Date of decision: 18/11/2009

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Sh. Sewak Ram,

Permanent R/o Vill. Verkhalta, P.O. Chambaghat,

Tehsil & District Solan, H.P.

… Complainant

Versus

1. M/s UNITED SPIRIT LIMITED,

Regd. Office, 51, Richmond Road, Bangalore,

560025, Andhra Pradesh,

Through its Managing Director cum Incharge.

2. M/s UNITED SPIRIT LIMITED,

Unit Baddi, Plot No. 4, HPSIDC,

Baddi, District Solan H.P.

Through its Managing Director cum Incharge.

3. English Wine Shop, Chambaghat,

Tehsil and District Solan H.P.

Through its Proprietor/ Partner.
…Opposite Parties.

For the complainant: Mr. D.C. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, on, 18.01.2008, he purchased one bottle of wine named and styled and labeled as “Bagpiper Deluxe Whisky” containing 375 ml, from the OP No.3, for his own consumption. It is averred that, the aforesaid wine is manufactured by the OP No.2, under the licence obtained from OP No.1, hence, the OPs No.1 & 2, are liable for any injuries and adulterous wine, being manufactured, bottled, distributed and thereafter sold by them to the general public. It is averred that, when the complainant was to open the aforesaid wine bottle, he found some foreign articles, i.e. pieces of glass, in it. The complainant further proceeded to aver that, on, 19.01.2008, he visited the shop of the OP No.3, and when brought the matter to their notice, the OP No.3, instead of doing some remedial steps, in a rude manner refused to replace the same. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in their written version, to the complaint, denied the purchase of bottle of wine, from the OP No.3, on, 18.01.2008. However, it is admitted that the wine is manufactured by OP No.2, under the licence obtained from OP No.1. It is also denied that the bottle of wine was containing foreign article, i.e. pieces of glass, as the products being manufactured by them are being one as per international standard which are required for the manufacturing of liquor products and the same products are tested several times with regard to their quality and the stands being required as per the law governing the same, hence, the question of foreign articles, does not arise, as the wine is being supplied to the supplier after checking each and every bottle in a detailed manner. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice. The OPs No.1 & 3 did not put in appearance before this Forum and as such the complaint was ordered to be heard exparte against them.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant before us, is, having a grievance that the product styled as ‘Bagpiper Deluxe Whisky’ purchased by him from the OP No.3, manufactured by OP No.2, under the licence obtained from OP No.1, had a foreign articles, i.e. pieces of glass, in it, rendering it unfit, for, consumption.

6. The complainant avers that, he, purchased the aforesaid bottle of whisky from the OP No.3, on 18.01.2008, which fact has been contested by the OP No.3, inasmuch, as, the complainant has not placed on record the bill of purchase of aforesaid bottle of wine, hence, is, not in a position to prove its sale. As the OPs in their reply, in paragraph 2 has admitted that the wine is manufactured by OP No.2 under the licence obtained from OP No.1, hence, the contents of the averments in the complaint detailing the fact of purchase of bottle of wine, from the OP No.3, attain truthfulness.

7. The bottle of Whisky, so purchased by the complainant from the OP No.3, on, 18.01.2008, was produced before this Forum on 28.02.2008, as is evident from the perusal of zimni order rendered by this Forum on, 28.02.2008, and it was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat whose report dated 22.04.2008, details, the, fact that the product of Bagpiper Deluxe Whisky, is, not fit for human consumption due to the presence of glass pieces. Even, if, some delay has occurred from the date of its purchase, till, its production and transmission to CTL Kandaghat for its report, yet, the fact, as, detailed in the report of CTL Kandaghat which has remained in un-controverted, of, it being in a sealed condition, hence, deterring the introduction of a foreign substance in it, ousts, the, possible inference arising from delay, of the, glass pieces, having been introduced in it subsequent to its purchase. Besides, for want of its having been controverted, it attains conclusiveness and, is, to be accorded sanctity. Therefore, it is, to be construed, that, the OP No.3, by selling a defective product, which was not fit for human consumption, manufactured by the OP No.1, has not only committed deficiency in service, but, has also indulged in an unfair trade practice.

8. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the OPs No.1 & 2, are, jointly and severally directed to pay damages to the complainant, which in the fact and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the bottle of whisky was having pieces of glass in it, hence, rendering it, unfit for human consumption, was sold to the complainant, by the OP No.3, is, quantified at Rs.5,000/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.1,500/-. The amount of damages and cost of litigation so ordered above, shall be defrayed to the complainant by the OPs, No.1 & 2, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order.

9. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

hello this side is homesecurity....
thank you for generated this thread.