Sahni Super Market
This is a discussion on Sahni Super Market within the Food And Drink forums, part of the Tour and Travels category; Consumer Complaint No: 148/2007 Date of presentation: 07/12/2007 Date of decision: 24/12/2009 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Sh. Manesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Pal, R/o ...
- 02-11-2010, 12:06 PM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Sahni Super Market
Consumer Complaint No: 148/2007
Date of presentation: 07/12/2007
Date of decision: 24/12/2009
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Sh. Manesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Pal,
R/o Hanuman Building, Dhobighat Road, Solan,
Tehsil and District Solan H.P.
1. M/s Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,
Village Katha, P.O. Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh,
District Solan, H.P.
2. Sahni Super Market,
Opposite Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School,
The Mall, Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.,
Through its sole proprietor Sh. Keshav Sahni S/o Sh. Ashok Sahni.
For the complainant: Mr. Vidya Sagar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Gagan Chauhan, 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, 19.11.2007, he purchased one bottle of limca of two liters having batch No.160, from the OP No.2, for a consideration of Rs.50/-. It is averred that, when he was to consume the aforesaid bottle, then he found that there is a dead spider/insect suspended in the Limca bottle. The complainant further proceeded to aver that, the product so sold by the OP No.2, is, being manufactured by the OP No.1, and if the complainant had consumed the said product, then it would have been injurious to his life and health, as the same had become poisonous owing to dead spider/insect inside the Limca bottle. 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, contended that there is no possibility of finding of foreign object in the sealed bottle, as the company is having a great reputation and engaged in business of manufacturing and sale of beverages, having a nation vide reputation. It is further contended that in the manufacturing and bottling of the product, there are various stages in the unit and after the completion of all stages which includes carefully washing of bottles before bottling and after filling the product and before corking up the bottle and the same goes from various steps which are carefully checked by the skilled worker and in that eventuality there is no chance of any default or negligence in manufacturing and bottling the product before it comes in the market.
Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
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 ‘Limca’ purchased by him from the OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1, had foreign articles, i.e. spider/insect, in it, rendering it unfit, for, consumption. However, the OPs, in their written version, to the complaint, have repudiated the claim of the complainant, inasmuch, as, that there is no possibility of introduction of, a, foreign object in the sealed bottle, as their, are, various stages washing of bottles at the plant before its bottling, to, obviate the introduction of a foreign substance.
6. The complainant avers, that, he purchased the aforesaid bottle of Limca from the OP No.2, on 19.11.2007, which fact has not been contested by the OPs, hence, the averments in the complaint detailing the fact of purchase, of, bottle of Limca, from the OP No.2, attain truthfulness.
7. The bottle of Limca, so purchased by the complainant from the OP No.2, on, 19.11.2007, was produced before this Forum on 22.02.2008, as is evident from a perusal of zimni order rendered by this Forum on, 22.02.2008, and it was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat whose report dated 03.04.2008, details, the, fact that the contents of the Limca, is, not fit for human consumption due to the presence of sufficient quantity of objectionable suspended foreign matter and five dead insects. 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, when it was received for analysis, their, hence, deterring the introduction of a foreign substance in it, ousts, the, possible inference arising from delay, of the, foreign matter and dead insects, having been introduced in it subsequent to, its, purchase. Besides, for, want, of, its having been not controverted, it, attains conclusiveness and, is, to be accorded sanctity. Therefore, it is, to be construed, that, the OP No.2, 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 OP No.1, being the manufacturer of the product, is, 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 Limca was having five dead insects, in it, hence, rendering it, unfit for human consumption, was sold to the complainant, by the OP No.2, 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 OP, No.1, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint qua OP No.2, is, dismissed.
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.Regards,
Click here to Become Premium Member
- By adv.singh in forum Food And DrinkReplies: 6Last Post: 09-04-2012, 07:09 PM
- By Tanu in forum Cloths And AccessoriesReplies: 0Last Post: 10-31-2009, 03:05 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 02:31 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 02:30 PM
- By racer9999 in forum Other Product and ServicesReplies: 0Last Post: 08-04-2009, 02:47 PM