Delhi

New Delhi

CC/155/2016

Afzal Naseem - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Pvt.Ltd. & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

22 Dec 2021

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI, DISTT. NEW DELHI

M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002

CC/155/2016

D.No._________                                                              Dated:

AFZAL NASEEM

S/O MOHD. NASEEM,

R/O C-222, GALI NO. 20,

NORTH GHONDA EXTN.

DELHI 110053                                                                           COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.

          THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

13, ABUL FAZAL ROAD,

           BENGALI MARKET, NEW DELHI,

 

2. M/S MOON BEVERAGES LTD.

THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,

A-32, SITE-4, SAHIBADAD INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SAHIBABAD, DISTT. GHAZIABAD, U.P

 

3. KALI PRASAD

PROP. OF V.K. COMMUNICATION,

MCD, PCO BOOTH,

NEAR VERDHAMAN COMPLEX,

MAIN ROAD, YAMUNA VIHAR,

DELHI 110053                                                        OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

CORAM : MS. POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

      MS. ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER

                                                                              

                                                                   Date of Institution: 01.03.2016

                                                                   Date of decision:    22.12.2021

ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER

ORDER

Heard Through Video Conferencing

 

1. As per the complaint, the case of the complainant in brief is that on 15.01.2016, the complainant had purchased 6 bottles of Maaza Cold drink and 6 bottles of coca-cola of 200 ML each, for a cash of Rs.144/-in total, from the seller Mr. Kali Prasad, Prop. Of V. K. Communications/OP-3 and was issued cash memo in that regard. Allegedly, on consumption of 4 bottles of Maaza the complainant and his family members found different taste and also felt unwell. Thereafter, the complainant checked the remaining bottles of Maaza Batch No.135 dated 27.10.2015 and B.N. 0920 dated 19.08.2015 and found insect in the said two bottles. As per the complainant, he immediately contacted the OP-3 and apprised him of the said facts but the complainant was told by OP-3 that he has no responsibility for the same as the products are manufactured by OP-2/ M/s Moon Beverage Ltd. Thereafter, on 18.01.2016 the complainant lodged a complaint with Consumer Helpline of OP-1 who is Hindustan Coca-cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vide complaint no.546768 and the complainant was assured that his issue would be resolved shortly but nothing was done. The complainant alleges that the products made by OP-2 being defective are harmful dangerous and unhealthy not only for him but also for public at large. The complainant also contacted the official of OP-1and apprised him of the facts but did not get any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, the Complainant served a legal Notice dated 10.1.2016 upon the opposite parties 2 & 3 but did not receive any reply nor any resolution of his issue. The Complainant, therefore, approached this Commission alleging mental suffering and agony on account of the defective products and seeks redressal of his grievances. The complainant has, prayed for a damages of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with the litigation expenses.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 Hindustan Coca-Cola beverages Pvt. Ltd. contested the complaint alleging that they have been dragged in litigation. OP 1 in their reply, stated that they are not the Agents or distributors of Coca-Cola Company but one of the authorized bottlers of the Coca- Cola Company and they do not supply or sell coca cola in the area where complainant resides. They further stated that the complaint is frivolous, baseless and misconceived and has been filed to extort the money and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite Party No.2 (M/s Moon Beverage Ltd.) filed their reply but was thereafter proceeded ex parte vide order dated 08.01.2020, and their evidence is not on record.  In their reply, OP -2 stated that they are authorized agency of Coca Cola, not the retail supplier and they sell the goods to the retail shopkeepers against the valid receipts. They further stated that the complaint is frivolous, baseless and misconceived and has been filed to extort the money.
4. On perusal of file, we note that service had been affected on OP -3, Kali Prasad, the seller, however, none has appeared on his behalf.
5. The complainant filed its rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 as well as its evidence reiterating the averments made in his complaint. The complainant has relied on the documents annexed with the complaint which are as follows: Cash Memo/Receipt issued by OP-3, Photographs of Maaza Bottles showing insect inside, Copy of legal notice sent to the Op-2 and Op-3 and Copy of website news showing similar incident at Nagpur.
6. The OP-1 has also filed their evidence denying the allegation made by the complainant. OP-1 has categorically stated that they have not received any legal notice issued by the complainant.
7. We have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as of the Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and have perused the material on record, including the documents relied upon by the complainant.
8. The complainant has made the averment that OP-1 are the Agents or distributors of Coca-Cola while OP-1 has submitted that they are one of the authorized bottlers of the Coca- Cola Company.
9. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the OP-1 is the agents of the Coca-Cola Company, the burden lies on the complainant to prove his case. The complainant alleged in the complaint that contaminated soft drink had been sold to him by the OP-3. The Complainant has filed a Cash memo as Annexure C-1 in support of his claim. While perusing the said receipt, we observed that prima facie, the said cash memo does not appear to be genuine as the same does not bear any cash memo book no. nor does it show any cash memo serial no. Consequently, in our view, the complainant has failed to establish the fact that he purchased the soft drink bottles from OP-3 as he could not file a valid proof of purchase of bottles in question.
10. The complainant further states that on the consumption of 4 bottles of Maaza, the complainant and his family members found different taste and also felt unwell. Thereafter, the complainant checked the remaining bottles of Maaza Batch No.135 dated 27.10.2015 and B.N. 0920 dated 19.08.2015 and found insect in the said two bottles. On perusal of material on record, we note that the complainant did not produce the samples of the defective or contaminated product for analysis nor produced the sample before this forum to be analyzed by the Forum if the insect was visible through naked eye. He has merely relied on colored photograph of the bottles annexed with the complaint, which even does not show the batch no and date of expiry. We are of the view that the complainant has not complied with the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
11. The averments made by the complainant that he immediately contacted the OP-3 and apprised him of the said facts and on 18.01.2016, he lodged a complaint on the Consumer Helpline of OP-1 who is Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vide complaint no.546768 do not hold ground as he has not filed any documentary proof in this regard.
12. Further, the complainant has failed to establish the fact alleged that there was insect in the said bottle as he did not follow the procedure provided under section 13(1) (c) of CP Act1986.
13. Further, the Complainant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. V. Radha [LAWS (NCD)-2004-7-213]. On perusal of the same, we find that, in the facts and circumstances of present case, the said order has no bearing or applicability as the Complainant has failed to establish his case.
14. In the backdrop of above facts and circumstances, we find that the contentions raised by the complainant in the complaint are not proved for want of cash memo, corroborative documentary evidence and on account of failure in submission of sample to forum or laboratory for analysis. Since the complainant has miserably failed in establishing his case in the facts and circumstances, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of compensation against the opposite parties and as such, the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
15. A copy of the order be uploaded on the confonet website (www.confonet.nic.in)  and also supplied to all the parties/ Ld. Counsel  free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
16. Announced in Open Commission on 22.12.2021

 

 

(POONAM CHAUDHRY)

                                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

 

                            (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                                              (ADARSH NAIN)

                                MEMBER                                                                                              MEMBER