CHENNAI: The state-run liquor seller TASMAC and the liquor brand Shaw Wallace have been directed to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation to a consumer, who found insects in a liquor bottle that he purchased in 2006.
The complainant, P S Saravanan, purchased liquor at the TASMAC outlet in West Mambalam on August 21, 2006, for Rs 327. In the special black whiskey bottle, he spotted two insects.
So he did not open the bottle and kept the seal intact. Subsequently, Saravanan sent the bottle for chemical analysis to the Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, through the District Consumer Redressal Forum (Chennai South).
The analysis report said the small fly was “harmless”, but the forum said it proved that the sample contained foreign bodies, including a housefly.
“The contention of the opposite parties is that the report of the Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, is not acceptable because it was not authorised by the government,” said the forum president M Mony in its recent order.
“A careful perusal of the report shows that there are foreign bodies, including housefly inside the bottle of liquor which is sold for consumption... Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs 327 towards the cost of the liquor and shall pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 towards mental agony,” the order said.
The companies argued in the court that the complainant failed to establish that the lid of the bottle was not opened by him and was intact as packed by the factory and failed to produce any evidence that the complainant was suffering from any disorder or injury to health due to the consumption of the liquor.
Though the companies denied any negligence on their part, the forum in its order said, “To substantiate the said contention, the opposite parties have not produced sufficient records. Equally the opposite parties are bound to prove that there can be no carelessness or negligence while bottling, blending and sealing the bottle. That is the stringent statutory procedure. In this case, the opposite parties have not proved in such manner,” the order said.
‘Small fly was harmless’
Saravanan sent the bottle for chemical analysis through the District Consumer Redressal Forum. The analysis report said the small fly was “harmless”, but the forum said it proved that the sample contained foreign bodies