Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2537
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT, SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER
PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
AJAY KUMAR YADAV – Respondent
Revision Petition No. NC/RP/276/2022
For the Petitioner: MR. KRISHAN TEWARY, MR. ANKIT VIRMANI
For the Respondent: MR. AJAY KUMAR YADAV, R-1 IN PERSON
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the complainant to substantiate claims against the manufacturer, with insufficient evidence leading to reversal of liability.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Issues of negligence and liability raised in the consumer complaint - Manufacturer's liability based on assumptions versus established evidence of product authenticity. (Paras 9-14)
(B) Burden of proof - Failure of the complainant to substantiate claims regarding product ownership and authenticity, raising significant doubts regarding the involvement of the manufacturer. (Paras 11-12)
(C) Deficiency in service - Petitioner misidentified as responsible for product defects when evidence suggested a third-party liability instead. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased whisky and discovered foreign particles, alleging negligence by the manufacturer. Despite initial healing assurance and later negligence, details remain unproven.
Findings of Court:
The decision to hold the manufacturer liable lacked sufficient evidence, and the ruling was arbitrary; thus, the findings against the petitioner were set aside.
Issues: Primary questions include the responsibility clearly defining the role of the manufacturer in accusations of product adulteration and third-party liability misunderstanding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the claims require clear evidence and established liability, which the complainant failed to produce; hence, reversing the initial judgment finding against the petitioner.
Result: Revision Petition allowed; orders against the petitioner set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the initial facts establish a product safety complaint due to adulteration. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. the district forum ruled against the manufacturer, requiring assessment of proof. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments focused on consumer status and product authenticity claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. the appeal scrutinized evidential inadequacies and third-party liability. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. the court ultimately addressed liability misattributions; ruling in favor of the petitioner. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in Appeal No. 5/2022 vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Order of the District Forum was affirmed.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant and his friends planned a social gathering at his residence on 09.03.2018, for which he purchased a bottle of “Blenders Pride Reserve Collection (750 ml)” whisky from the Opposite Party No. 2/Retailer/Respondent No. 2, by paying Rs. 740/- through his Credit Card. On reaching home and before opening the bottle, the Complainant discovered a foreign particle floating inside the sealed whisky bottle. Considering the serious health risks potentially arising from consuming adulterated liquor, he immediately refrained from opening or consuming the product. Having previously encountered a similar adulteration issue with the same brand, the Complainant promptly informed the Opposite Party No. 1/Petitioner (the manufacturer and brand owner) via email on 27.03.2018, enclosing photographs and payment details, seeking immediate resolution. Despite a follow-up reminder on 15.04.2018, the Opposite Party No. 1 showed indifference and a delayed response. Subsequently, the Complainant was contacted by Mr. Jaspreet Dhindsa, representative of the Opposite Party No. 1, who eventually visited the Complainant’s residence on 30.04.2018. During this visit, Mr. Dhindsa examined the sealed bottle and explicitly acknowledged the presence of a foreign particle, suggesting that it might be a piece of plastic cork from the bottle’s neck.
3. Though Mr. Dhindsa assured that the matter would not be escalated and a response would be provided within two days, the Opposite Parties never reverted back. Multiple attempts by the Complainant to seek updates through emails, messages, and phone calls went unanswered, highlighting a negligent, indifferent, and unethical approach by the Opposite Parties. Due to this incident, the Complainant’s planned event was spoiled, leading to considerable embarrassment, mental stress, and financial loss. Additionally, the presence of adulterated foreign material in a reputed brand’s liquor posed grave risks to public health and safety, constituting clear deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and provision of defective goods by the Opposite Parties. In view of these facts, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Chandigarh-II, U.T.
Chandigarh.
4. The District Forum vide its Order dated 12.11.2021 dismissed the complaint against the Opposite Party No. 2 and allowed it against Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 1, directing them to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant towards mental agony. The Opposite Party No. 1 was further directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh and Rs. 50,000/- in “Consumer Legal Aid Account” of the State Commission. The Petitioner then filed its Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which was dismissed vide the impugned Order dated 19.01.2022.
5. We have heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent No. 1, and perused the material available on record.
6. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has argued that the Complainant has failed to prove his status as a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 by not producing any pr
