NCDRC slaps Rs 50,000 fine on Coca Cola, complainant donates it to consumer welfare fund.

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) while dismissing an appeal filed by a beverage giant ‪Coca Cola company against an order of MP Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions ordered it to pay a compensation of Rs 50,540/- to Mosoof Ahmed Hanfi, a resident of Katni district, who found dead insects, fungus and dirt inside bottles of ‪Maaza that he purchased from a local shop in ‪Katni (MP). Earlier, the complainant, a practising advocate purchased two bottles of Mazaa cold drink on May 25, 2007. He consumed one bottle at night and felt uneasiness in stomach after 10-15 minutes, leading to vomiting and diarrhoea and fainting sensation. When he was taken to the doctor, few pathological tests were conducted and the report thereof revealed that it was a case of food poisoning. He showed the second bottle of the cold drink to the doctor who noticed fungus and insects in it. While alleging that due to his sickness he could not appear in a competitive exam and he suffered professional loss, mental agony and financial loss. Subsequently, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, Katni and the District forum allowed the complaint and an appeal in the matter filed by Coca Cola before State Commission, Madhya Pradesh was also dismissed.

The Managing Director of a Coca Cola’s manufacturing unit contended before the NCDRC that Coca Cola Plant does not manufacture Mazaa Cold Drink and it is manufactured by Superior Drinks Pvt. Ltd, hence, he is not related to the case. It was further contended by him that there was no cogent evidence that whether the bottles were sealed or not. At this point, complainant brought the attention of the Commission to the order of District Forum, which had observed that second bottle was sealed one and sent for laboratory test. As per laboratory test report, there was fungus in the bottle. The complainant also produced the medical prescriptions and certificate issued by the doctor as well as the receipt of purchase of Mazaa. After thoughtful consideration, NCDRC observed that, “the complainant proved his case that the bottles, which, he had purchased, contaminated with fungus and other inorganic material. The medical certificate clearly proves that the patient was admitted, took the treatment for the same.” It was also observed by the Commission that as the complainant wished that the same compensation be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of National Commission for the welfare of consumer awareness, it is a good gesture of the prudent consumer. [Vikas Mittal v. Mosoof Ahmed, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 278, decided on May 4, 2016]

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -