SUPERINTENDENT EXCISE & PROHIBITION & ORS. EXCISE & PROHIBITION MAHABOOBNAGAR ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M. SHIVA RANI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 28.09.2010, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 236/2008, "The Superintendent, Excise & Prohibition & Ors. v. M. Shiva Rani & Ors.", vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order passed by the District Forum-I, Hyderabad in consumer complaint No. 185/2007, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant No. 1/respondent No. 1, M. Shiva Rani, is the wife of the deceased Middey Manikyam, and the complainants No. 2 & 3 / respondents No. 2 & 3 are his son and daughter respectively. The said M. Manikyam is stated to have visited Thummalapayya Village along with his family members for celebrating the Yellamma Gudi Shikara Mahotshav. The deceased is stated to have consumed liquor on that day at 5:30 PM, allegedly bought from the licensee-dealer Opposite Party-1 (OP-1) M/s. Swathi Wines, which is respondent No. 4 in the present revision petition. As per consumer complaint, the deceased fell down on the ground after consuming liquor and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Shadnagar, District Mehboobnagar for treatment. However, he died the same day at 7:30 PM. The report of autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) on viscera, brought out that the cause of death was due to poisoning by Ethyl Alcohol Intoxication. The brother of the deceased lodged a report with the Police under section 174 I.P.C. which was registered as CR No. 110/2004. It was stated that the deceased M. Manikyam was only 35 years of age and was hale and healthy at the time of his death and was working as mestry, earning about Rs. 3,000/- per month and bringing up his family. The consumer complaint in question was filed against OP-1/respondent No. 4, the owner of the shop, from which the said liquor was purchased. The present petitioners/OPs - 2 to 4 are the officials of the Excise Department in the Government of A.P. and are reported to have given licence/permission to OP-1/respondent No. 4 for running the said liquor shop. It is stated that the petitioners/OP-2 to 4 were required to label and check the liquor and certify that it was fit for drinking. The complainants sought compensation of Rs. 5 lakh from the OPs as compensation due to the death of the deceased.

(3.) In the reply filed by the petitioners/OP-2 to 4 before the District Forum, it was stated that the allegations mentioned in the complaint were baseless, as there was no other casualty reported from any part of the District in respect of the liquor supplied from the IML Depot to the licensee shop. The liquor had been supplied in sealed bottles to the IML shops and hence, the question of poisoning of liquor prior to the sealing of the bottles did not arise. Moreover, the complainant had not shown any bill or invoice to show that the consumed liquor had been purchased from OP-1. It was also stated that the complaint was barred by limitation as the same had not been filed within two years from the date of cause of action. It was also stated that OP-2 to 4 were not liable in any manner to provide compensation to the complainants.