E-Paper
Firm, store in Chandigarh penalised for selling cockroach infested liquor bottle
Yadav had complained that a bottle of Blenders Pride whisky (750 ml) with two cockroaches in it was sold to him at the payment of Rs 580, which he made through his credit card.
A liquor company and a store have been penalised by the consumer forum for selling an alcohol bottle infested with cockroaches.
The firm, Pernod Richard India, acquirer of the distilled beverage division of Seagram, and Sai enterprises, a store in Sector 22, Chandigarh, have been asked to refund Rs 580, the cost of the bottle, and pay Rs 60,000 as a compensation to a Sector-22 resident, Ajay Kumar Yadav.
Yadav had complained that a bottle of Blenders Pride whisky (750 ml) with two cockroaches in it was sold to him at the payment of Rs 580, which he made through his credit card.
He said the bottle was bought for a celebration on October 16, 2016 and claimed that when he opened the outer package of the whisky bottle on reaching home, he found it to be leaking and on a closer examination, noticed the presence of two dead cockroaches in it.
“Moreover, other foreign particles were also found floating inside the sealed bottle. Had it been consumed, it would have caused a serious health hazard,” Yadav said.
Sai Enterprises, the shop where he got the bottle from, was informed about it and on getting no response, an email was sent to the manufacturer on October 17, he added.
“The matter was dilly dallied, though some steps were taken to know the actual problem. But I failed to get any relief,” the complainant maintained.
Following this, a formal complaint was filed.
Pernod Richard India as well as the shop owner also filed separate replies whereby they raised the claim that seal of the whisky bottle was tampered with and the possibility of cockroaches and foreign particles deliberately inserted in the bottle could not be ruled out.
The forum observed that consumption of the liquor having dead cockroaches and other foreign particles apparently seemed to be injurious to health as it cannot be construed to be a liquor substance.
In its order, the forum stated, “Here we are strengthened by the decision of the 2010 case of Sameer Bhardwaj vs 1. Aradhana Soft Drinks Company with somewhat similar facts and circumstances... Taking an over all view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that OPs who are liable for manufacturing and bottling the soft drinks should be burdened with exemplary and punitive compensation so that in future they ensure that what they claimed is also practiced by them and no bottle of cold drink containing foreign material, etc. of any sort is sent by them in market for sale......”
Directed to pay Rs 60,000
Calling it a case of deficiency in service, the forum directed the respondents to refund the amount paid by Yadav while buying the bottle. They were also asked to pay Rs 50,000 for unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment to the local resident, and Rs 10,000 as the litigation cost.
