C.C. CHELLAPPAN vs CHENNAI BOTTLING CO. LTD.

THE complainant purchased for his consumption two bottles of soft drink with the brand name "Fanta", each containing 300 ML. It is bottled and marketed by the opposite party. He took the bottle to his house and before opening the bottle, he found a dead big bee in it. THE complainant was shocked. THE complainant would submit that selling such a product to common public will not only be injurious to public health, but also would amount to unfair trade practice, besides being deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed the complaint seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs.

THE opposite party submitted their version contending as follows: THE opposite party has a good reputation and goodwill for the products in the market. THE allegations made in the complaint are disputed. THE complainant is put to strict proof that a dead big bee was found in the bottle manufactured and distributed from the opposite party''s factory. THE opposite party is not guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service, nor there is any unfair trade practice. THE opposite party, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The lower Forum accepted the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed.

Though in the version, the opposite party would dispute the allegation relating to the finding of a dead bee in the bottle, it has been practically given up in the course of enquiry before the lower Forum and in fact in the grounds of appeal, there is no ground raised to dispute the same. The complainant has given a notice on 31.7.1998 and it has not been replied to by the opposite party though it was received by them. Therefore, it is not open to them to urge any other contention disputing the allegation about the complainant finding a dead bee in the bottle.

IN these days, it has become quite common to find contamination in soft drinks and soft drinks mixed with dangerous chemicals are flooding the market. That excessive quantity of basic components of pesticides have been found in the bottled drinks were reported in newspapers upon which the Government of INdia thought it fit to appoint a Joint Parliamentary Committee to probe the matter. Therefore, public health is important. Any act done which is hazardous to the public health should be condemned and put down firmly. If the complainant had, without noticing the dead insect inside the bottle, consumed it, what catastrophe would have befallen him, one cannot imagine. Persons in the position of the opposite party who manufacture and sell soft drinks to the public, must act carefully and see to it that the products they circulate for public consumption are free from components injurious to human health and ensure all safety measures in the process of manufacturing. Apparently, there has been a gross negligence in this regard which in the circumstances of the case, cannot but be called as most glaring example of utter indifference to the public health. The opposite party has to thank himself that the lower Forum has not chosen to award a high amount of compensation. The complainant has preferred this appeal not asking for higher compensation, but only prays that his first prayer should have been allowed. The first prayer is that a direction should be issued to the opposite party not to indulge in any unfair trade practice by selling such sub-standard and bad quality Fanta. Under Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, if after the proceedings conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things and Section 14(1)(g) reads as follows: "(g) not to offer the hazardous goods for sale; (h) to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale;"

Having found that the soft drink contained a dead bee in the bottle made available for public consumption by the opposite party and that it amounts to not only unfair trade practice but also deficiency in service, the lower Forum ought to have directed the opposite party under Sections 14(1)(e) and (h). In our opinion, such an order would follow as natural corollary since the complainant has proved his case. Hence we are of the view that the appeal has to be accepted as the relief that would flow from the conclusion arrived at by the lower Forum as a consequential relief and the lower Forum omitted to order as prayed for.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the lower Forum will stand modified as follows- (1) there will be a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation along with cost of Rs. 500/- within two months from the date of the order; (2) a further direction is issued requiring the opposite party not to offer such hazardous goods for sale in future.

Appeal allowed.