1. THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum, Akola dated 3.2.1993. The complainant in his complaint before the District Forum alleged that thums up, limca and maza - soft drink bottles purchased by him for a party were found defective. The complainant alleged that opposite party No. 1, Shakti Foods is the Dealer of soft drinks at Akola and at the material time was selling aforesaid branded soft drink bottles manufactured by O.P.No. 2, M/s. Nasik Bevarages Pvt.Ltd. The complainant alleged that he purchased on 6.12.91 ''thumps up bottles and ''limca bottles'' of one crate each from O.P.No. 1. The complainant alleged that he had purchased those bottles for out-station guests which were visiting his house for a party. However, the party was cancelled. The complainant alleged that his friends Damodr Yadav and Shri P.A. Shinde consumed two bottles of thums up and three bottles of limca and as a result of which they felt ill. The complainant alleged that they were taken for treatment to the local doctor and advised rest for two days and not to consume any food. The complainant further alleged that he suspected adulteration in the said bottles and in one of the bottles he found foreign material which looked like ''Dhatura'' seed. The another bottle of limca, he saw foreign material like ''nim'' or ''Mahua''. He also alleged that those sealed bottles were containing less quantity of the drinks. He also alleged that they were having discolouration. He also found a bottle of ''Maza'' a defective goods. The complainant, therefore, sealed ''four'' bottles and produced them before the District Forum, Akola along with his complaint.
2. THE complainant in his complaint claimed refund of Rs. 82 /- the sale price of the bottles and also Rs. 50,000/- towards the compensation.
The O.P. No.1 contended that he is merely a ''Dealer'' of O.P. No. 2 and, therefore, he is not liable for any compensation. The O.P.No.1 further admitted that he sold the bottles in question to complainant and further admitted that they were short of quantity having different colours. In short, the O.P. No. 1 admitted the sale of bottles to complainant manufactured by O.P.No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 denied the manufacturing defeet in the aforesaid bottles. It is also contended on behalf of the O.P .No. 2 that they never received any such complaint and denied their liability to compensate the complainant. The District Forum rejected the complaint on the ground that the complainant is ordinary electrical repairer and according to his status, it was not seem possible for him to purchase one crate of thums up bottles and another crate of limca bottles each containing 24 bottles for entertainment of his friends. Another reason for rejecting complainants claim appears to be that the report dated 6.6.92 of analysis on the bottles in question was published in one newspaper dated 19.6.1992.
We have heard Shri Rathi, Advocate for the appellant, the respondent No. 1 in person and Shri Rajivkumar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
3. ACCORDING to Shri Rathi, on the first ground to reject the complainant''s claim on the basis of his status is not correct. The complainant alleged that he purchased one crate of limca - and one crate of thums up and maza bottles from O.P. No. 1 has been admitted by O.P. No.1. The fact that O.P. No. 1 sold the aforesaid bottles to the complainant is not in dispute. In view of this admitted fact, the District Forum is totally incorrect to draw an inference that he could not have purchased it because of his status. It is common knowledge that if there is any function or a party, arranged by a person irrespective of his status, he may purchase the required article even on obtaining loan or by borrowing funds. Therefore, merely because he is a man of megre means that does not mean that he did not purchase the article in question. The fact has been admitted by O.P. No. 1 and, therefore, this finding of the District Forum is contrary to evidence on record. Moreover, the complainant has placed on record bill dated 4.12.91 showing the purchase of the aforesaid articles.
It is important to note that the complainant filed his complaint on 2.1.92. He filed an application before the District Forum requesting to send the bottles for analysis to the appointed laboratory. The application was made on 8.4.92. On the request from the Court, the bottles were send to Amaravati for analysis. The analysis was carried out on 11.5.92 and the report was prepared by the laboratory on 6.6.92. The report of analysis was actually brought by complainant by hamdasta from the analysist. There is report of the Analysist dated 8.5.92 on record. The result of analysis is shown at the bottom of the report under the head ''Remark''. It reads as under :- ''Sample No. 1 to 3 of thums-up and limca'' detailed above have total plate count more than 50 per ml. and M.P.N. of Colifora organisms more than 0 per 100 ml. and do not conform to the standards of sweetened carbonated water as per P.F.A. Rules 1955 and are unfit for human consumption. The sample Sr. No. 4 of maaza contains decomposed dead mass of animal origin and is unfit for human consumption." The aforesaid result of examination further show that sealed samples of limca, maaza and thumsup were received from the Registrar District Forum, Akola vide his letter dated 7.5.1992. The reading of the report of analysis clearly show that the thums up and limca bottles were unfit for human consumption and were containing foreign material. In view of these clinching evidence showing the defective nature of the goods sold to complainant, the entire report has been discarded by the District Forum on the ground that the news-item about the said analysis appeared in some local daily published on 19.6.92. It is, therefore, argued by the learned Advocate Shri Rajivkumar that it was the handi work of complainant to have the said report published in the Press, and, therefore, the District Forum was right in rejecting that report. We are not satisfied with this explanation. Simply because the report was published in the newspaper that does not mean that the report of analysis be discarded out right now. The samples were sent by the District Forum for analysis to the laboratory and the genuineness of the report cannot be doubed merely because the report of analysis appeared" in the press. It may be that the officials of the laboratory may have given this news to the local newspaper for publication. It is, therefore, unjust and unreasonable to attribute the supply of material to the press by the complainant. Even assuming that complainant supplied the news to the local press, even then the importance of the analysis cannot be doubted as untrue. Hence, we find that the District Forum has committed a mistake to discard the report of analysis which establishes that the goods sold to complainant were defective.
4. LASTLY, in support of the impugned order, it was argued by Shri Rajivkumar, the learned Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 that there was no manufacturing defect or that there was any foreign material in any of the bottles manufactured by them. However, it was admitted by O.P. No. 2 that large quantities of bottles were supplied by them at Akola through O.P.No. 1. There were no complaints from any one. Simply because large number of bottles were sent to Akola and there were no complaint cannot be accepted in view of the fact that complainant filed his complaint and also established through test analysis that the bottles supplied to him were defective. It is also contended by Shri Rajivkumar that before filling up the bottles they are processed through automatic plant and no foreign substance can be put in the bottle during the manufacturing process. It is, therefore, suggested that the complainant filed a false complaint because O.P. No. 2 has cancelled the dealership of O.P No. 1 and both of them conspired together and filed this complaint. In view of the evidence of analysis report before us, we are not prepared to accept the submission made by Shri Rajivkumar. There is yet another evidence tendered before us by way of documents by complainant. It is a letter dated 12.12.91 addressed to O.P. No. 1, M/s. Shakti Foods for O.P. No. 2. We have perused the said letter. It is stated in that letter that complainant is not ready to work for Nasik Beverages as a whole-seller and wanted to discontinue the same. It was, therefore, written in the said letter by O.P. No.2 to settle the accounts of their business. The reading of the said letter did not find any mention anywhere that his dealership was terminated by O.P. No.2 for any reasons whatsoever. On the contrary, in the said letter it is clearly given to understand that O.P. No. 1 did not want to work as a whole-seller of O.P. No. 2. The respondent No. 1 who was present before us stated that there were lot of complaints about the defective sale of the goods manufacturers by O.P.2 from the people and, therefore, he did not want to work as a wholesale dealer. In order to support the contention, O.P. No. 1 placed before us some documents in which it is shown that huge amount of stock was returned back to the manufacturer since some bottles were broken during the transit, some were half level filled in and for so many other reasons. In one of the items it is stated that the market rejected the stock. Thus, we find that there is substance in the contention raised by O.P. No. 1 that the goods manufactured by O.P. No. 2 were defective.
In view of the documentary evidence of defective nature of sale of goods manufactured by the O.P .No. 2 and the oral evidence of complainant, in our view, the District Forum was wrong to reject the complaint of complainant for imaginary reasons. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that complainant has proved his allegations and established by satisfactory evidence that the bottles sold to him by O.P. No. 1 manufactured by O.P .No. 2 were defective. Hence, the complainant''s allegations about the defective sale of goods has been proved.
Having thus found that the O.P. No. 2 manufactured defective goods and were found to be defective in nature, the complainant''s friends who consumed some bottles actually suffered injury after the consumption. Although the complainant has not proved the quantum of his loss, yet we find that he had to pay Rs. 82/- for the purchase of the said stock. He, therefore, is entitled to claim back that amount. Similarly, the complainant has to persue the complaint before the District Forum as well as this appeal before the State Commission in order to get justice so far as his allegations about the defective manufacturing and sale of goods are concerned. We, therefore, find that it would meet the ends of justice, if the complainant is awarded the reasonable compensation of Rs. 500/- for the injuries suffered by the consumption of goods by his friends. Similarly, we also would like to awara the cost of Rs. 1000/- to cover his expenses before the District Forum and the State Commission. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER
5. THE appeal is allowed. THE impugned order is set aside. THE complainant''s claim is partially allowed. THE O.P.No. 2 viz. M/s.Nasik Beverages Pvt. Ltd. is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 500/- towards the compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards the cost. Similarly, the O.P.No. 1 is directed to refund to complainant Rs. 82/ - being the price of sale of soft drinks. THE aforesaid amount be paid to the complain- ant within 30 days from the receipt of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation. Appeal allowed with costs.
