Liquor shop told to pay Rs 11K for not issuing bill as per rule

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission here has directed a liquor shop to pay Rs 11,000 as compensation and litigation cost to a resident for not issuing bill for beer as per the provisions of consumer protection rules and termed it unfair practice.

Vishal Singal, a resident of Panchkula, in the complaint filed before the commission said that he had purchased four pints of of Hopper Witbier (beer) on July 10, 2023, from the Liquor Estate and paid Rs 280. He again purchased four bottles on July 11, 2023, from the same shop. The next day he experienced uneasiness, stomach pain and nausea and also showed symptoms of food poisoning.

He alleged that the beers which were sold to him were old, stale and passed expiry date and were unfit for human consumption. He said that the beer bottles did not contain any maximum retail price, any date of import and the importer and distributor contact number, etc.

On the other hand, the counsel for the shop owner denied the charges. He argued that the complainant had not given any evidence to prove that the beer were purchased from the shop. Moreover, the receipt appended by the complainant showed that he had purchased four beers from a Mani Majra shop, but the same nowhere revealed which beer was purchased by him.

After hearing the arguments the commission said that the medical reports/tests did not substantiate that the complainant suffered from food poisoning due to the consumption of beer only. “But the bill is not in the format as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020. As per the rule, the bill must contain name and address of the seller, consecutive serial number, date of its issue, name of the consumer, description of goods or services, quantity, discounts and signature of the seller or his authorised representative, etc.,” it said.

“A perusal of the records showed that the bill was not in accordance of the rule as mentioned above. Hence, the shop owner has indulged in unfair trade practice,” it further said. The commission said that in view of this, the shop owner was directed to pay Rs 6,000 to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs 5,000 as the cost of litigation.