District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Palakkad: While considering the consumer complaint filed for finding a piece of glass in a beer bottle purchased by the complainant for his personal consumption, the Bench of Vinay Menon V, (President)*, Vidya A. and Krishnankutty N.K (Members), held that there was negligence on part of the Brewing Company (Opposite Parties) and were to compensate the complainant.
BACKGROUND
The complainant contended that a glass piece was found in a Kingfisher Storm super premium beer bottle purchased by him for personal consumption.
On the contrary, the Opposite parties (OPs) 1 and 2 i.e., United Breweries, stated that there was no chance of any contamination as beer bottles before being filled and sealed, undergo a number of procedures and the bottles are kept in a surgically pristine condition. They also contended that the bottle might have been tampered with and the instant cause of action might have been intentionally created.
OPs 3 to 4 i.e., the Beverage Outlets also stated that the complainant had not purchased the beer in question from their store, hence they are not bound to compensate the complainant in any manner
ISSUES FRAMED
Perusing the facts and contentions, the Commission framed the following issues-
Whether the liquor purchased by the complainant contained the impurity viz. namely glass piece as alleged by the complainant?
Whether there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs?
Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
Any other reliefs?
DECISION & ANALYSIS
Perusing the matter, the Commission inspected the bottle in question visually in presence of the counsels of OPs 1 and 2. . The Commission took note of the feeble sound when the glass particle hit the side of the bottle upon inverting it. The Commission stated that there was clear proof of presence of a solid particle in the bottle and that the cap of the bottle was not tampered with, and the beer bottle was presented before the Commission without any tampering.
Therefore, the Commission held that there was negligence on the part of O.Ps in bottling the beer. The Commission however could not ascertain any conclusion as to whether OPs 3 and 4 were sellers of the beer bottle in question, as the bill was allegedly issued on a blank sheet of paper. Thus, the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on part of beverage outlets..
Thus, the Commission in consideration of all the pertinent facts related to the instant case held that there was negligence on part of the opposite parties and Complainant is entitled to return of Rs. 140 along with interest of 10% (date of filing of this complaint) till the date of repayment
The Commission also directed OPs 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and to pay a cost of Rs. 2,500 to the complainant within period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Hence, the complaint was allowed.
[Abijith.V. v United Breweries Limited, CC/57/2023, decided on 18-06-2024]
*Judgment by Vinay Menon .V, President
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Complainant: K. Dhananjayan, Ratheesh Gopalan & Sreeraj R. Vallikode, Advocates
For the Opposite Parties: C. Madhavankutty & Prajeesha (OPs 1 &2), Kannaraj K.R. (OPs 3 TO 5), Advocates
The post appeared first on .