IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of ab initio loquitor, no further evidence is required.

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President—The respondent complainant purchased four bottles of Maza drinks manufactured by appellant OP3 company from the shop of OP 1 Shri Surender Babu Gupta, the distributor of which is OP 2 M/s Kohli Soft Drinks (P) Ltd and in one of the bottles two dead Flies were discovered, fortunately before consumption. The respondent complainant claimed compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 and litigation cost from the opposite parties and the District Consumer Forum awarded Rs. 5,000 to him as damages to be paid by OP2 and directed the OP3 manufacturer company appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with State Consumer Welfare Fund (Legal Aid, New Delhi).

2. The OP 3 manufacturing company has come in appeal.

3. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing. We have heard the respondent complainant Sri Vinod in person, and perused the record including the Memo of Appeal very carefully.

4. It is a case of ab initio loquitur, the manufacturer company has to be held responsible and the District Consumer Forum was fully justified in its award.

5. One of the contentions raised by the appellant in its Memo of Appeal was whether the matter could be decided without leading oral evidence? In a case of this nature when the facts speak for themselves which gain support from the bottle and the documents, no further evidence is required especially in absence of any evidence from the side of OP-3.

6. The other argument is that the dispute is not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. This is an argument of despair, because if such cases are not covered by Consumer Protection Act, then, no case will be covered under Consumer Protection Act.

7. The next question in the Memo of Appeal raised is that the award (penalty) is not fair and reasonable. We do not see any unreasonable or unfair feature in the award.

8. It was further argued that the manufacture appellant is not responsible. Who else will be responsible if the manufacturer is not responsible? The contention is without merit.

9. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

10. No further order is to cost.

11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

Appeal dismissed.

*******