The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the proper approach to the Commission, and refrained from awarding heavy costs due to it being the first case of its kind before the Commission.

V. Balakrishna Eradi, President —We see no merit at all in this Petition. The complaint of the Petitioner is that he purchased one bottle of “Mcdowell’s soda” from the hotel of the Second Respondent, on 3rd September, 1987 but found some foreign solid body floating inside the bottle. According to him, he carried the bottle away with him so that he could make a representation to the appropriate authorities in due course. However, it is only after a period of more than five months that he, for the first time, got his grievance published through the columns of a newspaper by name “Madhyam”. There is nothing to show that in the meantime, he had made any complaint or representation to the Municipal authorities who are in-charge of the administration of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or to any other authority. Nor, was any step taken to get the bottle sealed and its contents analysed by recognised laboratory. Long afterwards, he filed this petition before this Commission on the 8th June, 1988 claiming compensation of rupees twelve lakhs impleading also the First Respondent namely Mcdowell & Co. Ltd, apparently on the basis that franchise had been granted by the said Company permitting the manufacture of the soft drink in question in Kerala by M/s. Janso Softdrinks (P) Ltd., Aroor. We are unable to find on what basis the Complainant has claimed this fantastic amount of compensation of rupees twelve lakhs, even if his case regarding the existence of some foreign matter in the bottle of soda purchased by him is assumed to be true.

2. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter-affidavit totally denying the factum of any sale of soda water by his hotel to the complainant. Even though the complainant has produced a bill evidencing the sale of soda water for rupees two, the bill does not mention die name of the customer. Further, it is most significant that the charge of rupees two shown in the bill represents only the cost of the contents of the bottle and it does not include the cost of the bottle which amounts to three rupees. Hence, it is abundantly clear that the bill produced by the complainant does not relate to the alleged purchase by him of the soda bottle with its contents from the Second Respondent’s hotel. We are, therefore, unable to believe the case put forward by the complainant that he had purchased a bottle of soda water from the Second Respondent’s hotel and that it contained any foreign matter inside it. On the other hand, we are inclined to think that this is a totally mis-conceived approach to this National Commission for the purpose of ventilating some private grievance that the Petitioner may have against the Second Respondent. Such a gross abuse of process of this Commission, deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms.

Ordinarily, we would have awarded heavy costs while dismissing such a frivolous complaint but this being the first case of its kind coming up before this Commission, we refrain from mulcting the complainant with costs and rest content with recording our severe displeasure at the office-bearer of a consumer organisation (who is also an advocate by profession) having approached this Commission with such a baseless complaint which constitutes a clear abuse of the process of law. The complaint is, accordingly, dismissed.

Complaint dismissed.

––