Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/397/2023

VISHAL SINGAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE LIQUOR ESTATE - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV SHARMA

27 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/397/2023
Date of Institution	:	22/8/2023
Date of Decision	:	27/11/2024

 

 

 Vishal Singal R/o House No.892, Sector-12, Panchkula, 134112, Haryana.

 

…Complainant

Versus

 

1. THE LIQUOR ESTATE, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNERS/DIRECTORS; SCO 911, NEAR SOLITAIRE HOTEL, NAC MANIMAJRA CHANDIGARH 160101.

2ND ADDRESS:

THE LIQUOR ESTATE, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/ PARTNERS/DIRECTORS; PLOT NO.159, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1, CHANDIGARH 160002.

2. OZARK MERCHANDISING PRIVATE LIMITED, Through Its Directors; GULSHAN KUMAR & KRISHAN KUMAR SHOP No.174, First Floor, NEW ANAJ MANDI, SUNAM SANGRUR 148028, PUNJAB.

3.   BRINDCO SALES PVT. LTD., through its Directors; BRINDRA PAL SINGH, SIMER DHALL & SIMRIT DHALL S-53, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI 110020.

4. DE BRABANDERE BREWERY Rikswag 33, B-8531 Bavikhave, BELGIUM.

5. DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND TAXATION, CHANDIGARH through its SECRETARY; ADDITIONAL TOWNHALL BUILDING, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH 160017.

6. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CUM FOOD SAFETY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION, through its SECRETARY; CHANDIGARH SECRETARIAT, SECTOR 9, CHANDIGARH 160009.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Yash Yadav, Advocate for OP No.1 & 2.
	:	OP No.3 & 4 ex-parte.
	:	Sh.Sachin, ADA for OP No.5 & 6.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased 4 small size bottles of Hopper Witbier (Beer) dated 10.7.2023 from OP No.1 & 2 and paid an amount of Rs.280/- in cash. The complainant again purchased 4 bottles of Hooper beer dated 11.7.2023 from OP No.1 & OP No.2 and paid an amount of Rs.280/- through Debit ANNEXURE C-1 & C-2. In the intervening night of 11.07.2023 & 12.07.2023 the complainant felt uneasiness and stomach aches and vomiting due to which the complainant remained unwell and also developed symptoms of food poisoning. The complainant on finding out the cause of his food poisoning took notice that the Hopper beers which were sold to the complainant were old, stale and expired beers and were unfit for human consumption. The complainant got the tests report of his Ultrasound of Abdomen and of blood tests of GGT and LFT and was further shocked to have got diagnosed with inflammation of liver caused due to intake of poisonous beer and of concentration of toxins in the bile ducts detected though the test of GGT (Annexure C-4). The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP No.1 to 4 (Annexure C-5). It is further stated that the liquor which is sold in the State of Chandigarh is governed by the Liquor Excise Department. The beer bottles which were being sold to the complainant did not contain any maximum retail price, any date of import and the importer and distributor contact number, whereby the said department collects thousands of crores of rupees in revenue from the auction of liquor vends which indirectly come from the pocket of the consumer and purchaser of liquor. Due to the restrictive and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs and of the deliberate failure on the part of OP No.5 & 6, the complainant is left with no other remedy but to approach the Hon’ble Court for redressal of his grievance. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant has not appended any evidence in order to prove that the said beer case was purchased from the answering OPs which is a basic fact in order to maintain/justify prosecution and the said fact of purchasing 'Hopper' beer cannot be presumed. Moreover, the receipt appended by the complainant depicts that he had purchased 4 beers from the store of OP No.1, but the same nowhere reveals that which beer brand was purchased by the complainant. Even otherwise, it is not the grievance of the complainant that the answering OP refused to mention the name of the beer while issuing the bill in question. The allegations in the said complaint are unsubstantial and without any proof and the complainant has not placed on record any single evidence connecting the answering OPs with the alleged allegation. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1 & 2.
3.  Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.3 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.3 despite following proper procedure, therefore it was proceeded ex-parte on 19.10.2023.
4.     OP No.4 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that our beers are part of the batch that Mr.Vishal Singal consumed, were manufactured on 6 October 2021 and exported on 9 November 2021 from our brewery in Bavikhove, Belgium to India. It seems that Mr. Vishal Singal wants to hold us liable for the sale of beer after the expiry date. Obviously, we cannot be held liable for the sales of expired beer by a store in India, especially not when our beer was exported on 9 November 2021, and the beer was only sold by the store on 10 July 2023. Our beers were at the moment of export perfectly consumable till 6 January 2023. It seems that on the basis of the Food Safety and Standards Act only the wholesaler, distributor or seller can be held liable for selling beer after the date of its expiry. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.4. 

    However, none has turned up on behalf of OP No.4, hence OP No.4 is proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 5.12.2023.

5.     OP No.5 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that he has not placed on record the analysis report with regard to the analysis rendered/conducted by the notified Food Analysts for Chandigarh Administration or Analysts of any accredited NABL/FSSAI notified Laboratory on the alleged food article as well as the label of the alleged food article with the present complaint and in the absence of the same, the allegations of the complainant cannot sustain the scrutiny by this Hon'ble Commission. The complainant cannot be said to have hired the services of answering Opposite Party No.5 at any stage being a Consumer, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering OP No.5.
6.     OP No.6 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that he has not placed on record the analysis report with regard to the analysis rendered/conducted by the notified Food Analysts for Chandigarh Administration or Analysts of any accredited NABL/FSSAI notified Laboratory on the alleged food article as well as the label of the alleged food article with the present complaint and in the absence of the same, the allegations of the complainant cannot sustain the scrutiny by this Hon'ble Commission. The complainant cannot be said to have hired the services of answering Opposite Party No.6 at any stage being a Consumer, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering OP No.6.
7.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
8.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
9.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
10.     The main grievance of the complainant is that after consumption of 4 Hooper witbier on 10.7.2023 & 11.7.2023, he felt uneasiness & stomachaches and in the morning of 12.7.2023, started showing symptoms of food poisoning. Later he came to know that the Hooper witbier bottles were bottled/manufactured on 6.10.2021. So complainant alleged that he was sold & supplied expired beer.
11.     On perusal of the Annexure C-2, it is observed that complainant purchased 4 bottles of beer, for which he paid an amount of Rs.280/-. We have gone through the bill and the said bill is not issued on the format as prescribed under the Rule 5 of the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020.
    We reproduce Rule 5 of the Consumer Protection (General) Rule, 2020 here below:-    

         “5.Manner of issuing invoice or bill or cash memo or receipt for goods sold or services rendered. (1) Every invoice, bill, cash memo or receipt for goods sold or services rendered, issued by a seller shall have the following minimum particulars, namely:-

(a) The name and address of the seller;

(b) a consecutive serial number not exceeding sixteen characters, in one or multiple series, containing letters or numerals or special characters (hyphen or dash, and slash, symbolised as "-" and "/" respectively) and any combination thereof, unique for a financial year,

(c) the date of its issue;

(d) the name of the consumer;

(e) the description of goods or services;

(f)(the quantity, in case of goods;

(g) the shipping address, where applicable;

(h) the taxable value and discounts:

(i) the rate of tax;

(j) the signature of the seller or his authorised representative;

(k) the customer care number or e-mail ID, where available, and

(l) the total price in single figure, along with the breakup price showing all the compulsory and voluntary charges, such as delivery charges, postage and handling charges, conveyance charges and the applicable tax:

    Provided that where such invoice, bill, cash memo or receipt is issued by a seller in electronic form, the signature of the seller is not required.

(2) The serial number on the invoice, bill, cash memo or receipt to be issued by a seller shall not be altered, removed, replaced, or erased under any circumstances.”

    On bare perusal of Annxure C-2, it is observed that the said bill/cash memo is not in pursuance with the rule as mentioned above. Hence, the OP No.1 to 3 have indulged in unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (47)(j)(vii) of the CPA Act 2019

12.     We have also perused the medical reports/tests annexed at Annexure C-4, which do not substantiate that the complainant suffered from the food poisoning due to the consumption of the said beer only.
13.     We are of the view that the complainant has not placed on record the analysis report with regard to the analysis rendered/conducted by the notified food analysts for Chandigarh Administration or Analysts of any accredited NABL/ FSSAI notified Laboratory on the alleged food article having been consumed as well as the label of the alleged food article as alleged in the present complaint and in the absence of the same, the allegations of the complainant cannot sustain the scrutiny by this Hon'ble Commission.
14.     Significantly, OP No.3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.3 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.3 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.    
15.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP No.1 to 3 are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

1. to pay an amount of ₹6000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
2. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

16.     The consumer complaint qua OP No.4, 5 & 6 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
17.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 to 3 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, till realization, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
18.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
19.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

27/11/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member