BHAWANA KUMAR vs VARUN WEBRES LTD

-HEARD.

IT is submitted that a lizard was found in one out of five bottles of Pepsi and a complaint was filed claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000. The Respondent contested the matter, inter alia, on the ground that no Pepsi bottle which contained dead lizard was sold to the complainant. The Liaison Officer, Shri Atun Kumar Sharma filed an affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 Pepsico. He submitted that the bottle allegedly containing Pepsi with lizard produced by the petitioner, was not manufactured by the Respondent Company. He alleged that the bottle had been re-sealed after putting therein a dead lizard. Earlier, father of the petitioner had also filed a similar complaint against Coca Cola Company by putting a lizard in a Coca Cola bottle, which was dismissed.

The State Commission in order to satisfy their conscinee had got the bottle examined in the presence of the Counsel for the complainant. It was found that some of the edges of bottle cap were raised and some were pressed and the bottles which had been produced by the Quality Control Expert did not had that kind of edges in the bottle cap. It was seen with the assistance of magnifying glass and creping gauge. These facts were confirmed by using creping gauge making it clear that the edges of the bottle cap were tampered with. The complainant''s Counsel was also asked if he wanted to send this sample to some other Laboratory after moving an appropriate application, it could be so sent but they refused to do so. In these circumstances, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the bottle was tampered with and it has been produced before the Court by putting a lizard inside the bottle. The State Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

THE father of the complainant Shri Ramesh Chandra Verma has submitted before this Commission that the State Commission could not undertake the exercise of testing the bottle as was allegedly done by the State Commission and had acted beyond its jurisdiction. In case we accept his submission then neither the State Commission nor this Commission is supposed to keep its eyes and ears open to decide the matter, which comes before the State Commission or before this Commission. This is also against the basic principle of the provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, which authorizes any Court, Commission or Authority to make inquiry from any person for arriving at a just conclusion. We feel that the order passed by the Consumer Fora below is absolutely just, correct and justified. No interference is called for. Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly. Revision Petition dismissed.