JAG MOHAN SHARMA vs CHANDIGARH BOTTLING CO.

THIS appeal is concluded in favour of the appellant on the point of the quantum of compensation by our decision in 1993 CPC 502, Vijay Kumar v. Managing Director, M/s. Hamdard Wakf Laboratory, Delhi and Others, It, therefore, suffices to notice the facts with utmost brevity.

M/s. Chandigarh Bottling Co., Chandigarh are the manufacturers of Limca cold drink, whilst the other two respondents are the distributor and retailer thereof. On the 10th of October, 1992, the complainant-appellant purchased as many as five crates of Limca vide Bill No. 992 for an amount of Rs. 440 /- from respondent No. 2 for serving the same at the marriage of his daughter. On the following day on 11th of October, 1992 when the said drinks were served to the guests, they were immediately taken ill and started vomitting. The complainant then examined and found that black coloured particles in the bottles of Limca were patently visible and ilso fungus therein. The supply of cold drinks was stopped forthwith and the remaining 29 bottles remained unused with the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, a formal legal notice was also served on the respondents and it was the case that the representative of respondent No. 1 visited the complainant on 21st of October, 1992 and on opening some bottles actually found foreign particles therein. The complainant was assured redress, but later no action was taken, compelling him to knock at the door of the District Forum, Jagadhari. The respondents in defending the complaint admitted the purchase of Limca bottles, but attempted to deny any adulteration or foreign particles therein. The plea was that the bottles were genuine and of sound standard and they would have no objection if the same were got analysed from the Government Food Laboratory.

The District Forum on the basis of material before it including the bottles produced in the Court, found them patently sub-standard because they were blackish and contained suspended particles therein and unfit for drink. It took the view that in view of the colour and foreign particles and fungus therein, the question of these being defective was patently concluded and no further proof was required, therefor. As regards relief only a direction to refund Rs. 440/- was made as also security of the crates and Rs. 200/- as damages.

MR. M.S. Guglani, the learned Counsel for the appellant had primarily relied upon Vijay Kumar v. Managing Director, M/s. Hamdard Wakf Laboratory, Delhi and Others (supra) and rightly contended that the grant of the paltry sum of Rs. 200/- as damages was indeed a cruel joke on the appellant, who had gone through the mill of a trial before the District Forum and now was pushed into taking up an appeal against the same, even after fully establishing the defective quality of the Limca Bottles. There is patent merit in the aforesaid submission. What deserve highlighting is the fact that Mr. S.K. Grover the authorised representative of respondent No. 1 had fairly stated that they had not chosen to file an appeal against the order and to consequently challenge the findings therein. Obviously enough the same has now achieved finality against them and the matter has to be viewed on the firm foundation of the supplied goods being patently defective.

MR. S.K. Grover, the authorised representative of the respondents was slightly off the mark in contesting this appeal. He had attempted somewhat belatedly to assail the merits of the issue and to contend that the supplied goods were in fact not defective. This stand obviously can not be countenanced and the respondents have only themselves to blame for allowing the order under appeal to become final against them on the issues of fact. In fact MR. Grover was compelled to concede that once that is so the marketing of defective and hazardous drink is a serious issue. MR. Grover on 1993 CPC 328, Anup Kumar alias Kailash Sharma v. MR. S.M. Kanwar and Others; 1993 CPC 527, Tarun Aggarwal of Panchkula v. The Managing Director, Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd., and Ors. is patently vain because those are cases where it was in fact not actually established that the goods were defective. Herein, we are in the fact situation where the finding of the adulterated nature of the cold drinks has achieved finality and the solitary question now at the behest of the appellant is the quantum of compensation. Once, it is held as above the appellant has a cast iron case. In Vijay Kumar''s case, it was observed as follows: "Therefore, the complaints by an actual consumer though couched in terms of personal relief in essence becomes a representative one to protect not only himself, but equally the silent majority of consumers in a country where rights of the consumers are yet at a threshold stage. The individual consumer who taken up cudgels in this context has somewhat of an oneous task which is highlighted pointedly by the present case. xxx xxxx xxx In the aforesaid context we are inclined to take the view that an individual consumer in such a situation bears the mantle of the larger consumer interest and indeed that of the public at large. Consequently, in the somewhat few cases where he succeeds he is not only entitled to a full monetary recompense but equally some consideration for espousing the public consumer interest. If even after success, a consumer of this kind is left with a substantial amount out of his pocket because of a trial and appeal then perhaps, few would come forward to face such hazards. It is indeed fair that the quantum of recompense in such situation must at least be a full equivalent of the burden of the cost of proceedings undertaken by him.

In the light of the aforesaid observations the quantum of compensation had been enhanced to Rs. 5000/- only and we are of the view that the said yard-stick is equally applicable in the present case as well.

THIS appeal is, therefore, allowed in the terms above and the compensation granted to the appellant is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- only. The sum shall be tendered to the appellant within one month from today, failing which compliance would be enforced by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act. Appeal allowed.