The Sikkim State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gangtok, comprising Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan (President), Hem Kumar Chettri (Member) and Karma Loday Lepcha (Member), upheld the finding of deficiency in service against Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. in relation to a Royal Stag whisky bottle that contained foreign particles despite its cap and hologram being intact.

The Commission observed that laboratory examination found that the bottle had not been tampered with, while the company's contention that the bottle was spurious or counterfeit was not substantiated. It upheld the District Commission's finding that the bottle was defective in quality and purity and dismissed the appeal.

Brief Facts:

Bijay Rai filed a consumer complaint against Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. and the Manager, Aroma India Pvt. Ltd. concerning a 375 ml bottle of Seagram's Royal Stag whisky purchased for ₹226 from a foreign liquor shop at Lower Pelling, West Sikkim, on April 25, 2022.

Rai alleged that the whisky bottle contained a white, sticky, algae-like substance/foreign particles. He produced the whisky bottle and cash memo before the District Commission and also examined the liquor shop owner from whom he had purchased the bottle.

The District Commission, on September 2, 2022, opened the sealed packet containing the bottle in the presence of the parties, their counsel and Commission staff. The cap and hologram were found intact, while a white sticky, algae-like substance was visible floating inside the bottle. The bottle was thereafter kept in the safe custody of the District Commission.

Pernod Ricard disputed the claim and contended that the bottle might not have been manufactured by it and could be spurious or counterfeit.

The bottle was sent to Edward Food Research & Analysis Centre (EFRAC), Kolkata, for examination. EFRAC confirmed that the sample was received with an intact hologram seal and cap and had not been tampered with. The District Commission also noted that there were no visible defects in the container, no leakage, the package was in good condition, the seal was properly aligned and the printing was legible.

The District Commission awarded Rai ₹226 towards the cost of the defective product, ₹35,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment, and ₹20,000 towards litigation costs.

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. and the Manager, Aroma India Pvt. Ltd. challenged the order before the Sikkim State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Observation & Decision

The State Commission found that the evidence of Rai and the liquor shop owner reasonably established that the Royal Stag whisky bottle had been purchased by Rai from the liquor shop. It therefore upheld the District Commission's finding on the purchase of the bottle.

The Commission considered Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.'s contention that the bottle was spurious or counterfeit. It noted that Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. failed to furnish any officer from the Sikkim Excise Department to substantiate its doubt regarding the bottle being spurious or counterfeit.

The Commission also noted that Dipen Ch. Kakati, the Purchase Executive of Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., admitted that the bottle of liquor produced by the company to demonstrate the hologram had been manufactured only on November 14, 2023, whereas the Royal Stag whisky bottle in question had been manufactured in 2021. It further noted that the enquiry report relied upon by Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. was dated February 27, 2024, after institution of the complaint and without instructions from the District Commission.

The State Commission held that the issues concerning whether the bottle contained foreign particles and whether it was spurious or counterfeit had been correctly decided in favour of Rai by the District Commission.

It further held that the District Commission's conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., as the Royal Stag whisky bottle was defective in quality and purity, could not be questioned.

Finding that the compensation awarded by the District Commission was not exorbitant and was well balanced, the State Commission upheld the award and dismissed the appeal. There was no order as to costs.

Case Number: First Appeal No.03 of 2024

Case Title: Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bijay Rai

Appearance

Mr. Hareesh Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant

Mr. Pujan Kharka, Advocate for the Respondent

Click Here To Read/Download Order