Consumption not compulsory to claim compensation

Consumption not compulsory to claim compensation written by Diksha Sharma student of Government Law College, Mumbai

Kandhari Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Darshan Kumar

Facts:

The appellant was accused of trading three crates of cold drinks that were found contaminated, with the presence of flies within the bottles after being served to the guests. Respondent no.1 had purchased these bottles from Respondent no. 2, who in turn bought it from the appellant. Reportedly, neither the respondent nor any of his guests had consumed the beverage. The respondents filed a case in the dispute redressal forum seeking for refund of costs and compensation.

Issues:

• Whether respondent no. 1 is entitled to compensation?

Legal Provisions:

• The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Appellant’s Contention:

The appellant did not deny the fact that the bottles had been manufactured by him. It was submitted that the drinks were processed as per international standards taking every detail into account which means that there couldn’t have been any scope of mistake. The appellant had raised an objection that respondent no. 1 cannot put himself under the purview of ‘consumer’ as he did not buy the crates from them directly instead were bought from respondent no. 2, therefore he is not liable to pay any compensation or costs. It was further submitted that the respondent did not mention any bill proving the date of purchase. There was no intake of the beverage by the guests; hence any liability on account of consumption does not arise. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the appeal.

Respondents’ Contention:

The respondent submitted that after the opening of the bottle, many flies were present within the contents and it did seem like adulteration. If consumed, it could have proven fatal for the health of his guests; accordingly, he had arranged another crate of bottles. There was adulteration and hence it is prayed for a reward of compensation.

Observations of the forum:

The learned District forum observed that the version presented by the appellant that the bottles have been allegedly adulterated is falsified. After examining the contents of the bottle, it is proven that there was nothing intentional or any wrong done by the respondents deliberately. The prime responsibility lies on the part of the manufacturer to ensure and carry out safety standards to prevent any calamity. After perusing the receipt of notice sent to respondent no. 2 and the appellant again falsifies the contention of the appellant that there is no proof of date of sale or purchase. Furthermore, taking into consideration the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ravishankar, it was observed that it is not necessary for the ‘consumer’ to ingest the adulterated liquid to claim the compensation.

Judgment:

The District Forum awarded damages of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.1,000/- to respondent no. 1. The appeal of the appellant was also dismissed with costs of Rs. 3000/-.