DHILLON KOOL DRINKS BEVERAGES LTD Vs. SUNDERPAL DHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.2.2005 passed by District Forum, Rohtak whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent No.1 - complainant, directions have been given to the appellant-opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation along with Rs.2,000 as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of the order.

(2.) The facts as can be gathered from the complaint are that on 3.7.2002 the complainant had purchased vide bill No.2598 for Rs.680 nine bottles of Pepsi and nine bottles of Mirinda drinks containing two litres each from Gopal Trading Company-opposite party No.1 in connection with birthday of his daughter for serving the same to his friends and relatives, who were to be invited on that occasion. When he took out the bottles from the packed carton for serving the same to his guests, he was surprised to notice a dead fly in one sealed bottle of Mirinda and two bottles of Pepsi were found cracked from the bottom and thus had become empty. The guests present at his house did not take any drink seeing dead fly in the Mirinda bottle. He could not arrange any substitute of the cold drinks in a summer season and felt embarrassed before his guests. Claiming that opposite party No.1 sold a sub-standard quality of cold drinks and alleging negligent and deficient service, a legal notice was served upon them but no response was received from the opposite party No.1. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum claiming compensation amount of Rs.50,000 on account of shock suffered by him and his family members on account of negligence on the part of opposite party No.1. In addition, he claimed Rs.680 being the costs of the bottles purchased by him.

(3.) The claim was contested by the opposite party No.1. In the written statement filed, it was pleaded by him that the complainant had never purchased bottles in question. It was maintained by him that the bottles were sold by him in a packed corrogated carton and if there was any deficiency in the cold drinks, manufacturer is responsible for the same. During the pendency of the complaint, opposite party Nos.3 to 5 were impleaded as parties to the complaint but subsequently as per order dated 14.12.2004 the name of opposite party No.5 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. The opposite party No.2, who is the manufacturer of the above mentioned cold drinks, took up the stand that the opposite party No.1 is not its authorized distributor as M/s. Ram Parkash and Company located at 217/20 DLF Colony, Rohtak through its sole proprietor Mr. Ram Parkash as per agreement dated 1.9.2000 is authorized distributor of the cold drinks. It denied the allegations made by the complainant and prayed that the complaint deserves to be dismissed.