Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Manish Singla & Anr.

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in F.A. No. 540/2018 dated 11.02.2019.

This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 34 days. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners on IA/11477/2019 an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons given in the application, delay is condoned.

In the Complaint Case, it was stated that Petitioner No.2/Opposite Party No.2 was producing cold drinks in the name of Coca Cola and Petitioner No.1/Opposite Party No.3 used to market this product. Respondent No.2/opposite Party No.1 used to sell the cold drinks in retail. On 10.05.2017, Respondent No.1/Complainant purchased 9 bottles (2 litres each) of cold drink in a sealed box for Rs.765/- from Respondent No.2. He used 4 bottles of cold drinks and on 12.05.2017, again when Respondent No.1 opened the box to offer cold drinks to his relatives, he noticed a dead lizard in a sealed bottle. He, therefore, did not take out any other bottle from the box and could not serve the same to his friends. It was further pleaded that on 12.05.2017, Respondent No.1 made a call at customer care No. 1800-208-2653 of the Petitioners and Respondent No.2. Respondent No.1, vide e-mail dated 15.05.2017, sent the Petitioners as well as Respondent No.2 photographs and videography of the bottle in question, to which there was no response. This was followed by a legal notice on 26.05.2017, to the Petitioners as well as Respondent No.2, but with no effect. Hence, the Complaint was filed.

Respondent No.2 failed to file written Statement within the stipulated period. Petitioners filed joint written statement and raised preliminary objection that the Complaint was not maintainable. It was based on spuriously filled and tampered bottle. The Complaint was an abuse of process of law. It had been filed only to harass and blackmail the Petitioners. No cause of action arose against the Petitioners, as the bottle in question was a tampered one. Respondent No.1 had not approached the Forum with clean hands. In the bill, batch number of the bottles supplied to Respondent No.1 was nowhere mentioned. The Petitioners detailed the bottling process adopted by them. It was impossible for any foreign matter or lizard to enter the bottle during the bottling process. There are many cases of refitting of seal of bottles and blackmailing the multinational company. Thus, Petitioners prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

District Forum, vide order dated 06.08.2018, partly allowed the Complaint against Petitioners. The Complaint against Respondent No.2 was dismissed. It was held that the Petitioners have neither pleaded nor proved that they had not supplied the bottles containing the batch number as stated by Respondent No.1. The District Forum partly accepted the Complaint with following observations: -

"For the reasons recorded above, complaint is partly accepted against Ops No 2 & 3. They are burdened with Rs.30,000/- as compensation, out of which Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Forum. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs No. 2 & 3, jointly and severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereafter. Complaint stands dismissed against Opposite Party No.1."

Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Respondent No.1/Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission.

State Commission, vide order dated 11.02.2019, allowed the Appeal of Respondent No.1 for enhancement of compensation stating that exemplary amount of compensation needs to be imposed upon the Petitioners so as to be a deterrent for other traders from selling such kind of dangerous and hazardous goods to the people. Order passed by the District Forum was modified as follows: -

"In view of the above, we hereby allow the appeal filed by the complainant and the order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the opposite parties be burdened of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.30,000/-, out of Rs.30,000/- be paid to the complainant as compensation including litigation expenses and balance amount of Rs.70,000/- be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum, Mansa."

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as Respondents. They reiterated their respective contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.

The State Commission observed that Respondent No.1/Complainant having observed a dead lizard floating in the bottle purchased by him lodged several complaints but there is no evidence on record that the Petitioners have ever replied to him. The Petitioners have also failed to provide any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the Complainant, except the CD which contained presentation on the bottling and tempering process. The State Commission observed that the tempering of bottle could only be done by skilled professional person and Respondent No.1/Complainant could not have done it. The State Commission took a serious view that presence of foreign matter in the bottle violated the provisions of Food Safety Act. Sale of such goods was hazardous and compromised with the health of the society. Exemplary amount of compensation needed to be imposed on the Opposite Party as deterrent for others from indulging in such activity. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum.

Both the Foras have come to the same conclusion and have given concurrent findings of fact, except that the State Commission has further enhanced the amount of compensation in view of larger implications of marketing products, which are hazardous and not fit for human consumption. Respondent No.1/Complainant having purchased bottles manufactured and sold by the Opposite Party, found certain foreign material in the bottle. The Petitioners/Opposite Parties could not provide sufficient evidence to show that the bottles were tempered nor were able to deny the evidence produced by the Complainant.

The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. This Commission is not required to reassess or re-appreciate the evidences and substitute its opinion to the concurrent findings of fact by the Fora below. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held as under: -

"13. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."

Same principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."

The petitioners have failed to point out any miscarriage of justice or that the findings are perverse i.e. not based on the evidences. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.