ARADHNA SOFT DRINKS COMPANY Vs. SAMEER BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision by opposite parties 1 and 2/petitioners is to the order dated 24th February, 2010 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Union Territory, Chandigarh enhancing the amount of compensation payable by them to be deposited with the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority. In nutshell, complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 alleging that he is a doctor by profession and in the last week of June 2008, he had purchased one bottle of two Iitres of 'Mirinda' Lemon flavour and one bottle of 'Slice' Mango flavour 250 ml. manufactured by the petitioners from respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 for Rs. 48. Before making use of the contents of bottles, at his house he (sic) thereafter none appeared on their behalf nor did they file any reply or respondent No. 2 admitted of having sold both the bottles of soft drinks in question to respondent No. 1. He pleaded that he not being the manufacturer is not liable to pay compensation to respondent. Against order dated 16.1.2009 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,000, both the petitioners as also respondent No. 1 filed appeals. Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. However, in appeal filed by respondent No. 1 the amount of compensation was increased. In the manner noticed above, submission advanced by Ms. Indu Malhotra for the petitioners is that the two bottles purchased by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2 contained spurious drinks and it was mandatory for Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . She pointed out that in the complaint the respondent No. 1 too had prayed for obtaining test such a procedure. In absence of test report, there 'was hardly any justification for enhancing the compensation to Rs. 50,000 by the State Commission. Submission is, however, without any merit. Since the petitioners had failed to file written version/lead evidence there was no plea from their 'side before the Forum about the contents of the bottles in question being spurious as is now sought to be contended. Moreover, appeal filed by the petitioners against Forum s order was dismissed by the State Commission observations particularly made in para No. 6 of the order dated 16.1.2009 by the District Forum being material, are reproduced below: The complainant has produced before us both the bottles, Which were in sealed condition. One of the bottles is of Slice Mango flavour of 250 ml. in which there appears a housefly lying in it, which is visible to the naked eye. The other bottle of Mirinda Lemon flavour of 2 litres also has a Foreign object lying in it.

(2.) We endorse the finding returned by the State Commission that in view of the said observation of the Forum sending of the two bottles to the laboratory for analysis was not necessary. In view of the presence of foreign materials in two bottles the State Commission was fully justified in enhancing the meagre amount of compensation from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 50,000. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Revision petition is therefore dismissed.