Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President;
Mrs. Basanti Devi, Mr. Kulwant Singh, Members
JAG MOHAN SHARMA—Complainant
versus
CHANDIGARH BOTTLING CO. & OTHERS—OPP. Parties
F.A. No. 377 of 1993—Decided on 5.11.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. M.S. Guglani, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties No. 2 : Mr. S.K. Grover, G.M., Authorised Representative.
For the Opp. Parties Nos. 2 & 3 : None.
An individual consumer who successfully pursues a complaint against a manufacturer or seller of defective goods is entitled to full monetary recompense and consideration for espousing the public consumer interest.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - DEFECTIVE GOODS - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM - ENHANCEMENT - CONSUMER INTEREST - PUBLIC INTEREST - CONSUMER AS REPRESENTATIVE OF LARGER CONSUMER INTEREST - FULL MONETARY RECOMPENSE - EQUIVALENT TO BURDEN OF COST OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased five crates of Limca cold drink from the respondent retailer for his daughter's marriage. The following day, the guests who consumed the drink fell ill and started vomiting. Upon examination, the appellant found black particles and fungus in the bottles. A legal notice was served to the respondents, and a representative of the manufacturer visited the appellant and found foreign particles in the bottles. The appellant filed a complaint with the District Forum, which found the bottles to be sub-standard and unfit for drink and directed the respondents to refund the purchase price, return the security deposit for the crates, and pay Rs. 200 as damages.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant from Rs. 200 to Rs. 5000, holding that the appellant, as an individual consumer who had taken up the cudgels on behalf of the larger consumer interest, was entitled to full monetary recompense and consideration for espousing the public consumer interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the bottles of Limca cold drink supplied to the appellant were defective. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for the defective goods. 3. If so, what was the appropriate quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The finding of the District Forum that the bottles of Limca cold drink supplied to the appellant were defective and unfit for drink was final and binding on the respondents, as they had not filed an appeal against the order. 2. The appellant, as an individual consumer who had taken up the cudgels on behalf of the larger consumer interest, was entitled to full monetary recompense and consideration for espousing the public consumer interest. 3. The appropriate quantum of compensation in such cases should be at least a full equivalent of the burden of the cost of proceedings undertaken by the consumer.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the compensation granted to the appellant was enhanced from Rs. 200 to Rs. 5000.
Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — This appeal is concluded in favour of the appellant on the point of the quantum of compensation by our decision in 1993 CPC 502, Vijay Kumar v. Managing Director, M/s. Hamdard Wakf Laboratory, Delhi and Others, It, therefore, suffices to notice the facts with utmost brevity.
2. M/s. Chandigarh Bottling Co., Chandigarh are the manufacturers of Limca cold drink, whilst the other two respondents are the distributor and retailer thereof. On the 10th of October, 1992, the complainant-appellant purchased as many as five crates of Limca vide Bill No. 992 for an amount of Rs. 440 /- from respondent No. 2 for serving the same at the marriage of his daughter. On the following day on 11th of October, 1992 when the said drinks were served to the guests, they were immediately taken ill and started vomitting. The complainant then examined and found that black coloured particles in the bottles of Limca were patently visible and ilso fungus therein. The supply of cold drinks was stopped forthwith and the remaining 29 bottles remained unused with the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, a formal legal notice was also served on the respondents and it was the case that the representative of respondent No. 1 visited the complainant on 21st of October, 1992 and on opening some bottles actually found foreign particles therein. The complainant was assured redress, but later no action was taken, compelling him to knock at the door of the District Forum, Jagadhari.
3. The respondents in defending the complaint admitted the purchase of Limca bottles, but attempted to deny any adulteration or foreign particles therein. The plea was that the bottles were genuine and of sound standard and they would have no objection if the same were got analysed from the Government Food Laboratory.
4. The District Forum on the basis of material before it including the bottles produced in the Court, found them patently sub-standard because they were blackish and contained suspended particles therein and unfit for drink. It took the view that in view of the colour and foreign particles and fungus therein, the question of these being defective was patently concluded and no further proof was required, therefor. As regards relief only a direction to refund Rs. 440/- was made as also security of the crates and Rs. 200/- as damages.
5. Mr. M.S. Guglani, the learned Counsel for the appellant had primarily relied upon Vijay Kumar v. Managing Director, M/s. Hamdard Wakf Laboratory, Delhi and Others (supra) and rightly contended that the grant of the paltry sum of Rs. 200/- as damages was indeed a cruel joke on the appellant, who had gone through the mill of a trial before the District Forum and now was pushed into taking up an appeal against the same, even after fully establishing the defective quality of the Limca Bottles.
6. There is patent merit in the aforesaid submission. What deserve highlighting is the fact that Mr. S.K. Grover the authorised representative of respondent No. 1 had fairly stated that they had not chosen to file an appeal against the order and to consequently challenge the findings therein. Obviously enough the same has now achieved finality against them and the matter has to be viewed on the firm foundation of the supplied goods being patently defective.
7. Mr. S.K. Grover, the authorised representative of the respondents was slightly off the mark in contesting this appeal. He had attempted somewhat belatedly to assail the merits of the issue and to contend that the supplied goods were in fact not defective. This stand obviously can not be countenanced and the respondents have only themselves to blame for allowing the order under appeal to become final against them on the issues of fact. In fact Mr. Grover was compelled to concede that once that is so the marketing of defective and hazardous drink is a serious issue. Mr. Grover on 1993 CPC 328, Anup Kumar alias Kailash Sharma v. Mr. S.M. Kanwar and Others; 1993 CPC 527, Tar
