VARUN BEVERAGE LTD. Vs. SANTOSH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants which were opposite parties before the District Forum against order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the District Forum, Karoli in Complaint No. 61/03 by which the complaint of the complainant -respondent was allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay the price of the bottle i.e. Rs. 7.25 and further to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and out of Rs. 10,000 a sum of Rs. 5,000 would be paid by appellant No. 2 and further the appellants would pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 for being deposited in Rajasthan Consumer Welfare Fund, Jaipur.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That the complainant -respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants before the District Forum, Karoli on 30.5.2003 inter alia stating that the complainant had purchased a carat of Pepsi from appellant No. 2 on 27.5.2003 after paying a sum of Rs. 348 and that carat was got manufactured by appellant No. l. It was further stated in the complaint that on 28.5.2003 out of that carat one bottle of Pepsi was found adulterated one as some foreign articles were there in the bottle and for that deficiency the present complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum, Karoli on 12.1.2004 admitting the fact that the said carat was purchased by the complainant from appellant No. 2 but the allegation of misbranded of one bottle was denied and it was prayed that complaint be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Karoli through impugned order dated 25.11.2005 had allowed the complaint inter alia holding that since the seal of the bottle in question, when it was produced before the District Forum was found intact and since some foreign articles were there in the bottle and thus, case of adulteration was found and the impugned order was passed as stated above. Aggrieved from the said order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the District Forum, Karoli, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

(3.) IN this appeal the learned Counsel for the appellants has raised the following two contentions: (i) That since there is no expert opinion about the fact that the bottle in question was misbranded, therefore, in absence of the expert opinion the findings of the District Forum by which the bottle in question was found misbranded could not be sustained. (ii) That in case it is found otherwise, that part of the impugned order by which a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 were ordered to be paid by the appellants to the Rajasthan Consumer Welfare Fund, Jaipur be quashed and set aside.