HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE PVT LTD Vs. MANVEER SINGH NEGI AND ORS
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt Ltd
Manveer Singh Negi And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 87 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 8/ - towards cost of bottle and Rs. 5,000/ - on account of deficiency in service. The District Forum has also directed the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - and Rs. 25,000/ - respectively. The District Forum has further directed that out of the total award amount of Rs. 40,008/ -, Rs. 30,000/ - shall be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund of the District Forum.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Manveer Singh Negi had purchased four bottles of cold drinks of 200ml (including a bottle of Fanta cold drink, in which date and time of manufacture and batch No. were printed as 16.02.2009, 21:20hrs and 194 respectively) along with one packet of Kurkure, one packet of Chips and one bottle of Maaza cold drink from Sh. Vivek Kumar of M/s Vivek Communications, Gupta Store, Subhash Nagar, Dehradun opposite party No. 1 on 05.03.2009 at about 11:00a.m. and made a payment of Rs. 97/ - for all the above items. The complainant has alleged that when he was about to open the 200ml bottle of Fanta cold drink, he noticed a number of insects inside the bottle and also saw one dead ant. When the complainant informed the opposite party No. 1 regarding the presence of insects and dead ant in the bottle and showed him the bottle, the opposite party No. 1 expressed his inability to compensate the complainant and said that he had received the said bottle from M/s Maha Lakshmi Sales, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Wing No. 6, Prem Nagar, Dehradun opposite party No. 2 on 04.03.2009 and handed over the receipt to the complainant. The manufacturer of these cold drink bottles was M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad, U.P. opposite party No. 3. The complainant sent notice dated 05.03.2009 through registered post to the opposite parties, but did not receive any reply from them. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 3 Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. has filed this appeal.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant opposite party No. 3 and respondent No. 1 complainant. None appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. We have also perused the material placed on record.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that a collusion between the respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is apparent on the face of record. He submitted that the said bottle was purchased on 05.03.2009 and on the same date, the respondent No. 1 issued notices to the opposite parties. Further, a copy of the cash/credit memo dated 04.03.2009 issued by M/s Maha Lakshmi Sales respondent No. 3 is being produced by the respondent No. 1. The learned counsel also pointed out that the cash/credit memo is in the name of "Present Gifts" and not in the name of the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel also submitted that the said bottle was inspected by Sh. Atul Kumar Jain, Team Leader (H.R.) of the appellant and he found that the seal of the bottle was tampered and the same was re -crowned and the material inside was spurious. Sh. Atul Kumar Jain, Team Leader (H.R.) had filed his affidavit before the District Forum in this regard. The learned counsel further argued that the District Forum did not follow the relevant provision provided under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the impugned order is contrary to the provisions. The learned counsel submitted that the bottles of the appellant are bottled in a state of art bottling plant and there is no chance of any insect material or contamination. It was obligatory on the part of the District Forum to ascertain through expert opinion or laboratory test, as to whether the content of the bottle was actually manufactured/prepared by the appellant, as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, the District Forum has failed to consider the factual as well as the legal aspect of the case. The learned counsel also referred the following decisions in support of his contention: -
a) The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Amit Swami vs. Coca Cola India Ltd. and Ors., 2007 2 CPJ 256
b) This Commission's judgment dated 08.04.2013 in First Appeal No. 171 of 2010, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lokesh Kumar and Anr.
c) This Commission's judgment dated 06.12.2008 in First Appeal No. 07 of 2007, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sudhir Vashishtha and Anr.
d) This Commission's judgment dated 06.12.2008 in First Appeal No. 63 of 2007, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. Avinash Kumar and Ors.
e) The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Bhawana Kumar vs. Varun Webres Ltd. and Anr., 2008 4 CPJ 163
f) This Commission's judgment in the case of Marinda Varun Beverages Ltd. vs. Arun Kumar Bhaduria and Anr., 2009 3 CPR 85
g) Haryana State Commission's decision in the case of Satish Kumar vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.,2011 2 CPJ 195.
h) The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of The Managing Director M/s Hamdard Wakf Laboratories (India) and Ors. vs. Vijay Kumar and Anr., 1994 2 CPJ 19
i) U.P. State Commission's decision in the case of Aquaous Victuals Ltd. vs. Rajesh Kumar Bajpai, 2004 1 CPJ 138;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.