National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While upholding
the order of State Commission awarding Rs. 10,000 as compensation to
the consumer who complained of presence of insects in a bottle of
“Fanta”, NCDRC dismissed the revision petition filed by Hindustan
Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. challenging the said order. The
complainant who found insects in the bottle of “Fanta” purchased by him
approached District Forum alleging that Coca Cola Company was responsible
for sale of sub-standard drink. The complainant blamed the company for
deficiency in service and demanded a hefty compensation from the soft
drink company. The company, in its defence, argued that that there is no
evidence that the said bottle was actually manufactured by them. They
further contended that the product is spurious and that their Bottling
Plant is of latest technology with high standard of hygiene and there is
no question of any insect entering into the bottle. The District Forum
dismissed the complaint but the State Commission accepted the appeal
filed by the complainant and granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- in his favour
and imposed costs in the sum of Rs.3,000/- upon the Company. A
laboratory report was also submitted before NCDRC in the matter which
said that, “The visual examination of bottle shows one large Insect
(approximately sized 10mm) floating on top of the bottle; two small
insects and several insects Body parts are suspended in the fluid”. In
the report, the laboratory also said that some of the features of the
bottle in question were different from a “Fanta” bottle that was
purchased from the market but, to be sure, the laboratory would need
bottle samples from the batch code printed on the bottle. After
considering all the evidences, NCDRC held that as the Company did not
try to help and provide any assistance to the Laboratory personnel and
no efforts were made the Company regarding the origin of that bottle.
Prima facie, it appears that this bottle belongs to the Company. The
Court added that the case stands proved against the Company and
dismissed the revision petition. (Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt.
Ltd. v. Purushottam Gaur, Revision Petition No. 1361 of 2014, decided on
March 21, 2014)1
Print Page
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1361 OF 2014
(From the order dated 06.01.2014 in First Appeal No. 241/2008
of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh )
Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages
Pvt. Ltd.
Malviya
Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
Vs.
1. Purushottam
Gaur
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE
DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
PRONOUNCED ON 21st MARCH, 2014
O R D E R
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. Sh. Purushottam
Gaur, the complainant, purchased a bottle of Fanta, cool drink, on 03.05.2006, from Sanchi Point,
Prop. Raj Kumar, Indore, who was arrayed as OP4 in the complaint filed by Sh.Purushottam Gaur, on 16.06.2006. When he arrived at his house, he noticed that
there were some insects
in the said Fanta bottle. He made a complaint to OP4, who contended that
it was the responsibility of Coca Cola Company.
There was a news item in the paper during the evening about this
incident. The complainant also arrayed
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, as
OP1, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Zila Rajgarh, as OP2, Hindustan
Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Indore, as OP3. The complainant demanded compensation in the sum of Rs.4,01,000/-.
2. The case was contested by the Ops 1 to 3. They contended that OP4 is not
their Authorised Dealer.
They contended that there is no evidence that the said bottle was actually manufactured by them. They further contended that the product is
spurious and that their Bottling Plant is of latest technology with high standard of
hygiene and there is no question of any
insect entering into the bottle. The bottles are sold after conducting
a number of tests.
3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. However, the State Commission
accepted the First Appeal filed by the complainant and granted a sum of Rs.10,000/-
in his favour
and
imposed
costs in the sum of Rs.3,000/- upon the OPs.
4. We have heard the counsel for the
petitioner at length. Our attention was
invited towards the Expert’s
evidence. This is Laboratory Report, dated 12.10.2007. Its relevant extract, runs as follows:-
Reference : Your letter dated Indore, 03.10.2007, serial number
G.FO/807/07 – Your case ID 410/06 Purushottam Gaur
Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola.
Dear Sir,
This is with reference to your letter dated and
referenced as above.
Please note the following observations
:
(a) As a part of our investigation to check whether
sample bottle provided is indeed packed by the manufacturer, we procured a
sample from the open market for comparison. It was found that the manner of
logo printing, the colour of caps, and some of the information printed on the
same, provided did not match the bottle procured from the market (this may have
been due to any number of reasons). Some of the differences
in details are listed below :
|
S/N
|
Particular of
sample bottle
|
Particulars of
market bottle
|
|
|
1
|
Cap Colour–Orange
|
Cap–colour- Blue
|
|
|
2
|
FANTA Logo is
printed
against a white
block
|
FANTA logo is printed against white swirl with
bubbles.
|
|
|
3
|
Fluid in bottle is
clear
|
Fluid in bottle is slightly turbid.
|
|
|
4
|
Apart from this marking & text on the sample
bottle as well as the bottle from the open market are also different.
|
||
It is, therefore, indeterminable that the bottle is
indeed the same as that of the manufacturer or not unless a control sample is
provided by the manufacturer
from the same batch (batch number 207).
We also understand that though the crimp cap is
currently intact, it is not conclusive that the bottle had not been opened and
repacked with a new cap. The manufacturer may be able to shed more light on
this matter.
We hope that the above information will help. Please do let us know if there are any
further queries.
Thank you and regards,
J.B. Vispute, QA Managar
Certificate
of Analysis
Particular of sample submitted :
|
Nature
|
Cold Drinks
(FANTA)
|
Your reference
No.
|
G.FO/807/07
Dated 03.10.2007
|
|
Batch No.
|
BN207A
|
CODE No.
|
DO 482
|
|
Date of Mfg.
|
18.04.2006
|
Date of Receipt
|
04.10.2007
|
|
Quantify
|
1 Bottle
|
Out Ref.No.
|
14375/07-08
|
|
Packing
|
Glass Bottle –
Sealed
|
Page No.
Date
|
1 of 1
11.10.2007
|
|
Sealed/
Unsealed
|
Ref.1: Puroshottam Gaur Vs. HindustanCoca
Cola
|
||
|
|
Ref. 2: Case ID
410/06
|
||
Description of the ]: Orange
coloured clear
Contents of glass] homogeneous (not suspension
Bottle ] form) fluid filled in Glass bottle.
Label Information
Batch No. : BN 207 A
Mfg.Date : 18.04.06 13:44
Quantity
: 200
ml
“Foreign Matter
: PRESENT
The visual examination of
bottle shows one large
Insect (approximately sized
10mm) floating on top
of the bottle; two small insects and
several insects
Body parts are suspended in
the fluid.
Note
:
Please read this test report in conjunction
with our letter dated 12th
October, 2007, and enclosed with this report.
Note
:1.
Date of completion of Analysis: 11.10.07
2.The
Customer has not requested provided
any
specification. Note Applicable.
For Choksi
Laboratories Ltd”.
5. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this bottle does not
belong to them and that they have
not manufactured this bottle. He
further cited an
authority, Amit Swamy Vs. Coca Cola India Ltd. & Ors,
II (2007) CPJ 256 (NC), the facts
of which, are
altogether different and
the same are not applicable to
this case.
6. It must be borne in
mind that onus of proof shifts on to the
OPs after the receipt of the report from the Laboratory. They did not raise any
objection. They did not try to help the Laboratory personnel.
They did not even
answer the questions posed by
the Incharge of the
Laboratory and did not provide any
assistance to the Laboratory personnel. Mere saying that OP4
has no connection with them, is not enough.
They should
have made an
enquiry as to why this bottle was sold by OP4.
OP4 could have given
the answer from where
he had purchased
this bottle. No efforts were made by OPs 1 to 3, regarding the origin
of that bottle.
Prima facie, it appears that this bottle
belongs to OPs 1 to 3. However, they have failed to rebut the evidence
against them. They must find
out as to who is copying their bottle. The control sample
was never provided by the OPs to
the Laboratory Incharge. The manufacturer could not help as to where the bottle had been
opened and re-packed with a new cap. The OPs could
have appointed their own Expert to find out,
whether, the bottle in question, belonged to them or not?. The question is, who could
manufacture the bottles on
behalf of OPs 1 to 3. Such like incidences, come to light, immediately. The petitioner is conspicuously silent
about the same. The silence on
their part is pernicious. The case
against OPs 1 to3 stands proved. The
revision petition, being without merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
.…..…………………………
(J.
M. MALIK, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER
.…..…………………………
(DR.
S. M. KANTIKAR)
MEMBER
dd/9
No comments:
Post a Comment