BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 380 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.20/2015 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, ADILABAD Between:

M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Mumbai-400 039.

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.Devendra Palav.

………Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 And:

1. Dr.Thippani Charan Kumar, S/o Lachaiah, Aged about 29 years, Occ.: Medical Practitioner, R/o H.No.11-238/4, Main Road, IB Utnoor, Utnoor, Adilabad District. ……..Respondent No.1/ Complainant

2. Sri Balaji Pharma Agencies, Mittal Complex, Cinema Road, Nethaji Chowk, Adilabad-504 001.

3. Pandu Naik Medical & General Stores, Main Raod, IB Utnoor, Adilabad District.

……..Respondent No.2 & 3/Opposite Party No.2 & 3.

Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Parties No.1 : M/s. S. Leo Raj Counsel for the Respondents No.1 /Complainant :

M/s.V.Gowrisankara Rao The Respondent No.2 & 3/Opposite Party No.2 & 3 :

Not necessary parties QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

MONDAY, THE 21^st DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Parties No.1 U/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this State Commission to allow this appeal and to set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2019 passed in CC No.20/2015 by the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad and to pass such other order or orders as this Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant was the Opposite Party No.1. Respondent No.1 was the complainant and the Respondent No.2 & 3 were the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 in the C.C.20/2015.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant as per the averments of the complaint is that the Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of various medicines and is a reputed pharmaceutical Company. Opposite Party No.2 is the distributor of medicines of various pharmaceutical companies including OP No.1 Company in Adilabad District. Opposite party No.3 runs a medical and general store at Utnoor, wherein he sells medicines of various companies including Opposite Party No.1 company.

4. It is the further case of the complainant that he is a medical practitioner at Utnoor in Adilabad District. On 10.01.2015 he was suffering with stomach upset so he sent his attendant to get Zintac Tablets of 300mg from a medical shop. His attendant went to the shop of the opposite party No.3 and brought ten tablets of Zintac 300 mg. for Rs.12/- under receipt No.3637, which were manufactured by opposite party No.1 Company.

5. With an intention to take a tablet, when he opened the paper cover in which the tablets were, given by opposite party No.3, to his utter surprise he noticed that there is packing defect in the strip of tablets sold to him. In that strip of 10 tablets five tables were not there though it is a sealed strip. It is packing and supplying defect on the part of the opposite party No.1. The concerned staff of Opposite Party Company ought to have verified the strip of the tablets after packing and before supplying it to the distributor. It is the bounden duty of OP No.1 to verify the drugs before supplying the same to the distributors for marketing. Even the opposite party No.2 distributor received the drugs supplied by OP No.1 without verifying the stock of the drugs supplied to him by Opposite party No.1 and in a routine manner he supplied the stock of the drugs to Opposite Party No.3. The opposite party No.3 also not verified the drugs supplied to him by opposite party No.2 and sold the defective packed strip to him. Thus at all stages Opposite parties No.1 to 3 acted negligently in supplying of the drugs and not discharged their duty of supplying the tablets properly. Th