Back
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI
Dhananjay Prasad Singh, President and Mr. Mohan Lal Roy, Member
Suryakant Pathak —Complainant
versus
Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd.
and Ors. —Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint No. 7 of 2010
Decided on 27.11.2012
For the Complainant:M/s. B.P. Tetarbe and M. Choudhary, Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:M/s. Praveen Jaiswal and R. Kumar, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Allegation of foreign materials inside sealed bottle must be proved by test report.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 17—Beverages—Sale of beer with foreign materials inside sealed bottle—Alleged purchase is not supported by any document—Opposite party has not been served with notice nor complainant could show how purchase could be connected with contesting opposite parties—Bottle of beer is produced but no test report is brought on record that beer containing a blade in bottle was manufactured by opposite parties and it was likely to cause alleged health hazards and loss to complainant—Reliefs sought were imaginary and complaint has been filed beyond limitation period of two years—Complainant has not been able to show that beer was product of opposite parties and it actually was packed with broken blade—Complaint also barred by limitation—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 7 to 9)
Mr. Justice Dhananjay Prasad Singh, President—This complaint has been filed by Shri Suryakant Pathak against the Opposite Party No.1 Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. and others for alleged sale of beer with foreign materials inside the sealed bottle of the opposite party No.1, the manufacturer.
2. As per complainant he purchased one bottle of Thunder Bolt Laser Beer from Opposite Party No.3 on 15th May, 2008. However when he was to open it, he found the bottle contained broken blade inside it. Further stated he brought this bottle back to the shop of opposite party No.3 where it was taken back with assurance to make complain with the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to compensate him suitably.
3. However nothing happened in spite of legal notice dated 20.8.2008 then this complainant was filed on 11.1.2009 before the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi on grounds that the complainant be compensated for mental agony and the opposite party No. 1 be held guilty of unfair trade practices to pay Rs. 14,98,000, etc. + Rs. 5,00,000 + Rs. 20,000 + Rs. 70, a total of Rs. 20,18,070 in all.
4. The learned District Consumer Forum, Ranchi by order dated 14.9.2010 held the case to be beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction and dismissed it. Thereafter this complaint was filed on 9.10.2010 with prayer to condone the delay. The opposite parties were noticed on point of admission and limitation also.
5. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 appeared while opposite party No.3 could not be served with notice. The opposite parties have filed detailed reply and raised objection on the maintainability of the complaint itself Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, learned Advocate for the opposite parties raised serious objection on the issue of limitation and jurisdiction also. According to him the complainant has not filed the receipt of alleged purchase dated 15.5.2008 nor disclosed the outlet or source that the bottle of beer was produced by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.
6. The complainant has filed evidence on 16.8.2011 and opposite parties on 7.9.2011 to assert their case. We have gone through the evidence on the record. Mr. Jaiswal further stressed that in absence of the bottle of beer, receipt of purchase and any expert opinion, the case was fit to be dismissed. It is also submitted that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 did not have any authorized sale shop in Ranchi which is also doubtful as the alleged seller has not been served notice by the complainant. Mr. Jaiswal further pointed out those legal defects in this case. According to the opposite parties the complaint was time barred and stood dismissed by the District Consumer Forum., Ranchi. As such the complainant be dismissed with cost.
7. We have considered these issues carefully to assess the complainant’s prayer. The alleged purchase dated 15.5.2008 is not supported by any document. The opposite party No.3 has not been served with notice nor the complainant could show how the said purchase could be connected with the contesting opposite parties. We further find that material evidence, the bottle of beer is produced on 16.11.2012 but no test report is brought on the record that the beer containing a blade in the bottle of Thunder Bolt Laser was manufactured by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and it was likely to cause alleged health hazards and loss to the complainant.
8. In addition of these apparent facts we find that the reliefs sought were imaginary and the complaint has been filed beyond the limitation period of two years. The order dated 14.9.2010 did not mention any liberty to the complainant in this context. The explanation presented to file the complainant before the Commission on 9.10.2010 is also not convincing.
9. In such facts and circumstances we find and hold the complaint case not Maintainable. The complainant has not been able to show that the beer was the product of the opposite party No. 1 and it actually was packed with broken blade. We also find the complainant to be barred by limitation. Accordingly th
