PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS LIMITED Vs. H ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant purchased three bottles of Pepsi from the first opposite party. The second opposite party the appellant is the manufacturer. After purchase, the complainant found a worm inside one of the bottle sold to him. Therefore, the complainant laid the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

(2.) The first opposite party is a small-time vendor, having a bunk shop from which the drinks were purchased. The fact that there was a worm in the drink is not disputed. In fact the Pepsi bottle containing the worm was also produced before the lower Forum and the lower Forum has noted the same. The second opposite party would say that they have a hygienic and up-to-date bottling unit and the cool drinks are manufactured under strict supervision and they have equipped their factory with latest high-tech machinery and that the entire thing is automatic and, therefore, there is no scope for any contamination or for any foreign body or article getting into the bottles or being found in the bottled drinks manufactured by them.

(3.) In the lower Forum, a Commission was appointed to inspect the second opposite party. It is not necessary for the purpose of the appeal or for the disposal of this case to consider the Commissioner's Report or to discuss about the condition of the second opposite party's bottling unit and the process of manufacture adopted by them. The established fact and the unabashed truth is that in a bottle containing the Pepsi soft drink a worm was detected. Since the first opposite party chose to remain absent, perhaps the second opposite party wants to now conveniently put the blame upon them by stating that the first opposite party must have done it. According to him, the first opposite party probably manufactured the spurious drinks and bottled it in their bottles which were available with them and sold them off as the products manufactured by the second opposite party and in that manner, the worm should have come into the bottle. It is not possible to enter into an inquiry upon that aspect when we have no material to conclude that such a thing took place. Nothing prevented the second opposite party from requesting the Forum to test the contents of the bottle that contained the worm in order to prove that it was not and could not have been manufactured in their unit at Mamandur. It would have been easier for them to show that it was the spurious drink and not one manufactured by them. So that, in that process, they can prove as well that the contamination or the presence of a foreign body such as worm in that drink should have come about in that context. When the appellant is emphatic in saying that the petty shop keepers manufactured soft drinks in their backyard with an unhygienic water by using well reputed branded soft drink bottles like Pepsi, then it is their duty to establish the same. What is the step taken by them to prevent it? Have they cautioned the public about it. When they requested for appointment of a Commissioner to inspect their factory, nothing prevented them to ask for the appointment of the Commissioner or directions to the same Commissioner to inspect some of the petty shops in the vicinity of the first respondent including the shop of the first opposite party to see if there is any such manufacturing going on in the backyard as alleged or to seize the bottled drinks with brand name of Pepsi or other brand names so that they can be tested to see whether they are spurious drinks and vended to prove that such drinks manufactured by the bunk holders or by petty shopkeepers in an unauthorized manner. It is not for the complainant to ask for any laboratory test report since it is not his case that drinks contained any forbidden chemical or any other ingredients harmful to health. On the other hand his case is that there was a worm in that bottle. To prove which a laboratory test is not required. When the appellant has a specific case to say that it was a spurious drinks manufactured by the petty shop keepers at their backyard, it is for the opposite parties to have requested the Forum to send the said bottle to the laboratory for test to find out whether it is a genuine product or a spurious product. They have failed to do the same which would only show that all their arguments are in vain. The company that the appellant herein is not liable can hardly be accepted. It may be that the bottled drinks were actually sold by the petty shopkeeper and it may be that the shopkeeper was not an authorized outlet of the appellant/second opposite party. But it is a petty shop where drinks manufactured by the second opposite party namely the appellant are being sold. Therefore, the appellant as the manufacturer would be squarely liable and accountable. In these days, when public health is the matter of concern for everyone, when food products and drinks flood the market unless rigid standards are maintained, the safety of the public will be in jeopardy. The mere look at the factory or the mere fact that the high-tech machinery is implanted cannot rule out the possibility of the something going wrong somewhere. There have to be effective checks at every stage. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that their factory is equipped with modern equipment and machineries and they employ every advanced technology, is of no avail since the mere fact that the modern technology is used cannot by reason of the same rule out the occurrence of such contamination. There has been negligence and carelessness in some corner of the second opposite party's factory. May be while the bottling was being done, some flies or worm got in the way and while the process of bottling was going on, or the water used was contaminated or polluted. The fact remains that it happened which all only point out the lack of care and disregard for public health. In fact we have come across reports of worm being found in chocolate which was claimed to have been manufactured by employing high-tech factory. Hence the contentions of the appellant about their factory being equipped with high-tech machinery cannot answer the presence of worm as we find proof of the negligence in the bottle containing soft drinks sold under the brand name of Pepsi which is that it contained a worm. Therefore, the attempt of the appellant in trying to put the blame upon the petty shopper is but an attempt to sweep the dirt under the carpet. They have failed to act with a concern for public safety and public health. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal.