Sanjeev Sharma son of Shri Udho Ram Sharma,

Resident of Below Post Office, Solan, Tehsil and

District Solan, H.P.
… Complainant.
Versus

1. M/S Gian Chand Faquir Chand, The Mall Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. through its proprietor/partner-cum-authorized signatory.

2. M/S Kandhari Beverages, Private Limited, 177-F, Industrial Area Phase-1 Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Director and General Manager.
…Opposite Parties.
O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that in the first week of May, 2005 he and his family members proposed to host a small party of various relatives and some friends at his residence, which was scheduled to be held on 08.05.2005. It is averred that on 07.05.2006, he purchased two crates of soft drink such as cock and Maaza from the OP No.1 vide bill No.71 dated 07.05.2006 for a sum of Rs.396/- to be served to the guests on 08.05.2006.

The complainant-further proceeded to aver that on 08.05.2006, when his friend was in the process of opening bottle of cock cold drink for the purpose of serving the same to a guest, he found some foreign object in the sealed bottle. It is further averred that some fungs was also found in the cold drink. The complainant-further proceeded to aver that thereafter he immediately brought the matter to the notice of the OPs and brought the facts to their notice, but to in vain. It is further averred that the OPs by selling a defective soft drink, which is not fit for human consumption, has indulged in an unfair trade practice. 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 filed separate replies to the complaint. The OP No.1 in its reply contended that it is having a great reputation and engaged in business of manufacturing and sale of beverages and the process of manufacturing and bottling of the product passes through various stages in the unit and after the completion of all stages, which includes washing of bottles carefully before bottling and after filling the product and before corking up the bottle, the bottle goes from various steps which are checked by the skilled worker and in that eventuality there is no chance of any default or negligence in manufacturing and bottling the product. It is denied that there was any foreign object in the bottle or that it was having fungs. The OP No.2 in its reply also took almost same stand as taken by the OP No.1 in its reply. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by selling a bottle which was having foreign product, or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their rival contentions.

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

5. The complainant, though, alleges that, he, purchased one bottle of Coke and one bottle of maaza from the OP No.1, however, with there being on record a bill issued by the OP No.1, detailing, the fact, of, the complainant having purchased from the OP No.1, two crates of Coke, hence, in so far as the purchase of Coke bottle by the complainant from the OP No.1, is, concerned, the above Annexure-1 corroborates the said fact.

It is, also, not denied by the OPs that the complainant had under Annexure-1 purchased two crates of Coke from the Op No.1. However, there does not exist any bill reflecting the fact of the complainant having also purchased from the Op No.1, the bottle of Maaza. Therefore, for the presence of a foreign substance, as, was detected in the bottle of Maaza, the, OPs cannot be held liable for its presence, in, it as the bottle of Maaza has not been proved to have been purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1.

6. The controversy, which requires to be put to a rest, is, whether the OPs can be held liable for the presence of the foreign substance having been found in the bottle, of, Coke purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1, which was, so, detected at the time, it, was opened for its use, on, the occasion of the marriage of the complainant, at, his native village in District Hamirpur. The bill Annexure-1 reveals that the bottle of Coke was purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1, on, 07.05.2006. However, it was at a get together, on, 08.05.2006, that, the, product purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1 came, to, be served, to, the guests at a get together hosted by the complainant. However, the complaint in the matter came to be instituted, on, 11.08.2008, hence, after, more-than four months had elapsed since the product, as, purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1, had, come to be opened for its use and when purportedly a foreign substance was detected in it.

Considering the delay which has taken place from the time of the purported detection of a foreign substance, in, the bottle of Coke by the complainant, as also, with the further delay which has taken place, in, this Forum ordering belatedly, on, 29.02.2008 and entirely so, on account of its belated production by the complainant before it, that, the, bottles of Coke, as well, as, Maaza be sent for analysis to C.T.L. Kandaghat, as also, with the report of the Public Analyst, in so far, as the manner of sealing of the bottle of Coke, is, concerned having opined that the metal crown upon the bottle was not tightly fixed their, also, being leakage of its contents, therefore, the inference, which ensues from the aforesaid facts, is, that when the complainant ought to have promptly initiated measures, at, the time of his having opened the bottle of Coke and, his, then having purportedly detected in it, the, foreign substance so as ,to, fasten the liability upon the OPs, for the impurity which had occurred in the “goods”, i.e. in bottle of Coke purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1.

Hence, lack of promptitude on his part or delay be gets the inference of after thought and concoction. Obviously, inference of after thought and concoction smother the truth, especially, when there, is, possibility of deterioration of the product, since, the time of its being opened, for, use and belated steps having been taken by the complainant, to, allege that he had detected a foreign substance, in, the bottle of Coke purchased by the him from the OP No.1. As such, the defect or impurity may be attributable, to, lack of proper storage of the goods on the part of the complainant.

8. As a sequel of the above, we disallow the relief, as claimed by the complainant and the complaint is ordered to be rejected, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.