| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 35 of 3.2.2017 Decided on: 12.3.2021 Sunil Kumar aged about 36 years s/o Chet Ram r/o H.No.619/7, Katra Sahib Singh Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - S.R.Provision Store, Triveni Chowk, Patiala through its owner/Proprietor.
- Pepsico Customer Service, P.O.Box 27, Qutab Enclave-I,Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) through its Manager.
- Varun Bewerage Limited Plot No.2-E,Udyog Kendar,ECOTECH-iii, Greater Noida, District G.B.Nagar.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Rajiv Lahatbadi,counsel for complainant. Sh.Amit Jain, counsel for OP No.2. Opposite party No.3 exparte. (Complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn) ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Sunil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against S.R.Provision Store and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
Facts of the complaint - Briefly the case of the complainant is that on 30.10.2016 he purchased some edible goods from OP No.1 including 7UP cold drink for Rs.50/- manufactured by OP No.3 and marketed by OP No.2. It is averred that when he took the bottles in question for serving to his family friends, he was astonished when he saw a dead house fly and spider inside the bottle . It is further averred that he purchased the product of OPs No.2&3 because of best quality as they always claim but the cold drink bottles supplied by them were contemplated, contaminated and unhealthy and may cause any swear health problem. The complainant approached OP No.1 but it showed its inability to help. There is thus deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-for committing unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and rendered deficient services; to pay Rs.21000/- as litigation expenses and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony.
- Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply, whereas OP No.3 did not come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.10.2017 and vide separate statement the complainant withdrew the complaint filed against OP No.1 as such the complaint against OP No.1 has been dismissed as withdrawn vide dated 17.8.2017.
Reply/Written statement - In the written reply filed by OP No.2, preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complaint is wholly false, frivolous and vexatious as it neither carried out its business nor manufacture any product within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and that the complainant never approached OP No.2 for his grievance if any against it; that the bottle in question does not belong to OP No.2; that the complainant has not impleaded the proper and necessary part to the present complaint; that some individuals manufacturer are manufacturing various brands(soft drinks) of the OP and FIRs lodged against them and got conducted raids at various places in Punjab, Haryana and various parts of the country against such manufacturers and a large number of quantity has also been recovered from such like forged/bogus/fake and spurious manufacturer; that the complainant is not a consumer ; that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands; that the OP is not the manufacturer of the bottle in question and also there is no relation between the complainant and the OP; that the impugned bottle is not tested by any laboratory and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- On merits, it is denied that the complainant is consumer of the OP.It is also denied that bottle in question belongs to OP in any manner whatsoever. It is averred that the complainant is not entitled for any claim as no loss or injury has been caused to him.The OP after denying all other averments have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
-
- In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C2 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of LUV S Kapil, authorized signatory of the OP and closed the evidence.
-
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that OP No.1 is provisional store and seller of edible goods, OP No.3 is the manufacturer of 7UP cold drink and OP No.2 is the brand name and supplier. The complainant on 30.10.2016 purchased some edible products from OP No.1 including 7up cold drink manufactured by OP No.2 with the MRP of Rs.50/-.The complainant purchased the product of OPs No.2&3 because of their goodwill but when he opened the bottle of cold drink he was shocked to see that there was some dead housefly and spider in the bottle and this lead his reputation down infront of his family friends.The ld. counsel has further argued that the bottle was supplied by Op No.2, as such he be compensated with Rs.2,50,000/- for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service including litigation expenses.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that complaint has been filed in collusion with OP No.1 and the complainant. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no evidence on the file which can show that the bottles were manufactured by OP No.2 or 3.The ld. counsel further argued that there is no report any chemical expert on the file so complaint be dismissed.
- In support of the case Sunil Kumar has tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the photocopy of the receipt of S.R.Provisions Store of Rs.550/- vide which two bottled of 7up cold drink were purchased for Rs.50/-each. On the other hand Sh.LUV S Kapil, authorized signatory has tendered his affidavit,Ex.OPA on behalf of the OP and he has deposed as per the written statement.
- As per the case of the complainant he had purchased two bottles of 7up cold drink on 30.10.2016 vide receipt Ex.C1.But this is a strange case where the complainant has withdrawn the case against OP No.1, so it seems that there is in collusion between the complainant and OP No.1.The OP No.1 could have appeared and filed a written statement and it was incumbent upon OP No.1 to prove that he had purchased bottled of 7up cold drink from the authorized agency of OPs and he was also duty bound to produce the receipt vide which he had purchased 7up cold drink manufactured by OPs No.2&3 but this evidence is totally missing in this file. It is admitted case that there are so many manufacturers of 7up cold drink in the market and without the proof that the cold drink which was purchased by the complainant from OP1 was manufactured by OPs No.2&3 and was purchased from authorized dealer of OPs No.2&3 but this evidence is missing on the file. So there is in collusion between the complainant and OP No.1.Moreover, the bottle was never sent to any lab for chemical examination. So in the evidence of evidence on the file it is not proved that the complainant allegedly to have purchased the bottles from OP No.1 were manufactured by OPs No.2&3.As such the complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:12.3.2021 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
