Hindustan Coca -Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Purushottam Gaur

SH . Purushottam Gaur, the complainant purchased a bottle of Fanta, cool drink, on 3.5.2006, from Sanchi Point, Prop. Raj Kumar, Indore, who was arrayed as OP4 in the complaint filed by Sh. Purushottam Gaur, on 16.6.2006. When he arrived at his house, he noticed that there were some insects in the said Fanta bottle. He made a complaint to OP4, who contended that it was the responsibility of Coca Cola Company. There was a news item in the paper during the evening about this incident. The complainant also arrayed Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, as OP1, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Zila Rajgarh, as OP2, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Indore, as OP3. The complainant demanded compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,01,000. The case was contested by the OPs 1 to 3. They contended that OP4 is not their Authorised Dealer. They contended that there is no evidence that the said bottle was actually manufactured by them. They further contended that the product is spurious and that their Bottling Plant is of latest technology with high standard of hygiene and there is no question of any insect entering into the bottle. The bottles are sold after conducting a number of tests.

THE District Forum dismissed the complaint. However, the State Commission accepted the First Appeal filed by the complainant and granted a sum of Rs. 10,000 in his favour and imposed costs in the sum of Rs. 3,000 upon the OPs. We have heard the Counsel for the petitioner at length. Our attention was invited towards the Expert''s evidence. This is Laboratory Report, dated 12.10.2007. Its relevant extract, runs as follows: Reference : Your letter dated Indore, 3.10.2007, serial number G.FO/807/07 - -Your case ID 410/06, Purushottam Gaur v. Hindustan Coca Cola.

Dear Sir,

This is with reference to your letter dated and referenced as above.

Please note the following observations:

(a) As a part of our investigation to check whether sample bottle provided is indeed packed by the manufacturer, we procured a sample from the open market for comparison. It was found that the manner of logo printing, the colour of caps, and some of the information printed on the same, provided did not match the bottle procured from the market (this may have been due to any number of reasons). Some of the differences in details are listed below:

It is, therefore, indeterminable that the bottle is indeed the same as that of the manufacturer or not unless a control sample is provided by the manufacturer from the same batch (batch number 207).

We also understand that though the crimp cap is currently intact, it is not conclusive that the bottle had not been opened and repacked with a new cap. The manufacturer may be able to shed more light on this matter.

We hope that the above information will help. Please do let us know if there are any further queries.

Thank you and regards,

J.B. Vispute, QA Manager

Certificate of Analysis

Particular of sample submitted:

Label Information

Batch No. : BN 207 A

Mfg. Date: 18.4.2006 13:44

Quantity: 200 ml

Foreign Matter: PRESENT

The visual examination of bottle shows one large Insect (approximately sized 10 mm) floating on top of the bottle; two small insects and several insects Body parts are suspended in the fluid.

Note: Please read this test report in conjunction with our letter dated 12th October, 2007, and enclosed with this report.

Note: 1. Date of completion of Analysis: 11.10.2007

The Customer has not requested provided any specification. Note Applicable.

For Choksi Laboratories Ltd.

THE Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this bottle does not belong to them and that they have not manufactured this bottle. He further cited an authority, Amit Swamy v. Coca Cola India Ltd. & Ors., : II (2007) CPJ 256 (NC), the facts of which, are altogether different and the same are not applicable to this case. It must be borne in mind that onus of proof shifts on to the OPs after the receipt of the report from the Laboratory. They did not raise any objection. They did not try to help the Laboratory personnel. They did not even answer the questions posed by the Incharge of the Laboratory and did not provide any assistance to the Laboratory personnel. Mere saying that OP4 has no connection with them, is not enough. They should have made an inquiry as to why this bottle was sold by OP4. OP4 could have given the answer from where he had purchased this bottle. No efforts were made by OPs 1 to 3, regarding the origin of that bottle. Prima facie, it appears that this bottle belongs to OPs 1 to 3. However, they have failed to rebut the evidence against them. They must find out as to who is copying their bottle. The control sample was never provided by the OPs to the Laboratory Incharge. The manufacturer could not help as to where the bottle had been opened and repacked with a new cap. The OPs could have appointed their own Expert to find out, whether, the bottle in question, belonged to them or not? The question is, who could manufacture the bottles on behalf of OPs 1 to 3. Such like incidences, come to light, immediately. The petitioner is conspicuously silent about the same. The silence on their part is pernicious. The case against OPs 1 to 3 stands proved. The revision petition, being without merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.