CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st March, 2015

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                     Date  of filing : 25/04/2013

CC /83/2013

Thomas Varghese,

S/o.Varghese, Padiyara Veettil,

Pallikuruppu P.O,

Karakurissi Grama Panchayath,

Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad- 678 593                      :        Complainant

(By Adv.K.Sankaran)        

                                                          Vs

1. A.Dinakaran, President,                                        :        Opposite parties

    Viyyakurissi Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana

    Sangham Ltd., No.P.47(D),

    P.O.Viyyakurissi, Palakkad – 678 593

    (By Adv.M.Ramesh)

2. Radhakrishnan, Secretary,

    Viyyakurissi Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana

    Sangham Ltd., No.P.47(D),

    P.O.Viyyakurissi, Palakkad – 678 593

    (By Adv.M.Ramesh)

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The case of the complainant is that he is a member of opposite party’s Co-op-Society.  He used supply milk to the society for marketing.  The society is collecting milk from other farmers and after local sale the balance milk will be sold to Milma.  The grievance of the complaint is regarding the assessment of the fat content of the milk supplied.  According to the complainant the opposite party is not assessing the fat content of the milk supplied by individual members and it has caused considerable loss to the complainant.  He also alleges that there is no proper accounts for calculating the fat of the milk and no test is conducted.

 Opposite party filed version denying the allegations of the complaint. They alleged that complainant is not a consumer.  The opposite party contented that the complainant is conducting a tea shop and according to his will and wishes he supplies cow milk and buffalo milk alternatively.  The activities of the opposite parties are governed by the Kerala Co-operatives Societies Act and the registers and books kept under by the opposite party are subject to co-operative audit and government control. So merely challenging the authenticity of the registers produced by the opposite party is not sufficient to prove that the same are not genuine.  With regard to the collection of the milk checking of the fat and SNF, calculation of price giving subsidy etc. are all governed and supervised by the departments like Dairy Development Department, Milma etc. So there is a direct control by the government agencies and inspected by the government agencies.  The main case of the opposite party is that the complainant is in enemical terms with the opposite party regarding the allotment of the building construction to a contractor against his interest.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant and the complaint is filed only on an experimental basis.  Hence it has to be dismissed with compensatory cost. 

Since the opposite party has raised issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint, the question of maintainability was heard as a preliminary issue.  Separate order was passed and preliminary issue was found in favour of the complainant. 

Complainant as well as opposite parties filed chief affidavit and opposite party filed an application to cross examine the complainant.  Complainant was cross examined as PW1.  Ext.A1–A3 series was marked from the side of the complainant.  Ext.B1-Ext.B8 was marked from the part of the opposite parties.  Opposite parties witness was examined as DW1 & DW2. 

Matter was heard.

The following issues are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2.   If so, what are the reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUES 1 & 2

          We had perused the documents as well as affidavits produced from both sides. The main allegation of the complainant is that there is no testing or calculation of fats by the opposite party.  The registers of the opposite party for a continuous period (from 2010-2014) were produced by the opposite party on the application filed by the complainant.  The opposite party had examined a witness, who was appointed as a testor even during the period while the complainant was also a director.  Opposite party had also produced records to prove that there was proper testing of the milk during those periods.  When the complainant was examined he had admitted that the opposite party had maintained records for the collection of milk from the members.  The complainant’s counsel argued that the purchase registers produced by the opposite party is not an authenticated document.  There are several corrections on various pages and over writings in many of the entries.  When the opposite party was examined he had admitted that certain corrections are done so as to achieve the minimum required fat so as to help the members of the society.  Certain adjustments are done when the entries are made in the purchase register while copying from the test report.  When the members supply milk to the society, samples will be taken from each member in separate bottles and it will be numbered.  After that each bottle will be tested separately and the fat content will be noted in the test report maintained by the society.  After that it will be copied to the purchase register.  The test report is only a rough record.  While copying, certain adjustments will be made so as to enable for the members to have the minimum required fat.  Except these no malpractices are followed in collecting the samples or recording the fat content.  The complainant’s counsel submitted that the testor does not possess the minimum requirement for the post. He had not attended the training programme conducted by milma.  Hence the assessment of fat by the said witness in the purchase register cannot be treated as genuine and it has no value.  The complainant had also admitted that the fat may vary due to different factors.  Complainant’s pass book shows different fats during different periods.  The main allegation of the complainant is that the whole milk was supplied to the Milma, and the consumer’s milk were valued on the basis of the fat assessed by the Milma.  The  DW1 had deposed that the calculation of the fat is to be conducted as per the directions of the government agencies and also as per the directions and supervision of Milma and other agencies.  According to the complainant (2000 ഫെബ്രുവരി മുത 2010 ഫെബ്രുവരി 20 വരെ പശുവി³ പാ മാത്രമാണ് ഞാ³ നല്കിയിരുന്നത് .  ഫെബ്രുവരി 20- തിയ്യതി മുത എരുമപാ  കൂടി നല്കുകയുണ്ടായി.  ഞാ³ എല്ലാദിവസവും എരുമപാലാണ് നÂകിയിരുന്നത്..... എരുമപാലിന്‌  ഫാറ്റ് കൂടുതലും, പശുവി³ പാലിന് ഫാറ്റ്  കുറവുമാണ് .  He had also deposed in cross examination that “പശുവിsâ  ആദ്യമുള്ള പാലും, വറ്റിയ സമയത്തുള്ള പാലും, എരുമപാലും എല്ലാം ഫാറ്റ് വ്യത്യാസപെട്ടിരിക്കും.... കാലി തീറ്റക്കനുസരിച്ച്‌ ഫാറ്റ് വ്യത്യാസം വരും)  The main case of the opposite parties was that the complainant is in enemical terms with the opposite parties regarding the allotment of building construction to a contractor against his interest.  The same was admitted by the complainant during cross examination.  It was also admitted by the complainant that he is having two buffaloes and three cows.  The fat will differ in both cases admittedly.  The variation shown in his purchase register with regard to the fat may be due to the above reason.   The complainant had no objection with regard to the  minutes book produced by the opposite parties.  The purchase register produced and marked as Ext.A2 series contains the fat contents of the farmers with regard to the milk supply during morning session and afternoon session.  The veracity of the registers produced cannot be considered before this Forum.  As per Ext.A2 series it is evident that the members of the society were paid according to the fat content recorded daily as per the supply of their milk.  Hence the contention of the complainant that there is no testing or calculation of fat of milk supplied by the individual members of the opposite party cannot be believed.  Hence we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. 

In the light of the discussions above we are of the view that the complainant had failed to prove the allegations as stated in the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed without cost.

Pronounced in the open court on this the  31^st March, 2015.

                                                                        Sd/-                      

Smt. Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                            Sd/-                                                                                                      Smt. Suma. K.P

                                                                       Member

                                                A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Complaint letter to Dairy Development Officer dtd.05/04/2013 (Photocopy)

Ext.A2 series– Purchase Register

Ext.A2(a)- Page.62 of Ext.A2 Purchase Register dtd.11/06/2012

Ext.A3 series – Minutes Books

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1- Pass book of complainant 01/08/2010 to 07/10/2011 (photocopy)

Ext.B2- Pass book of complainant 16/09/2012 to  05/03/2013 (photocopy)

Ext.B3- Photocopy of bonus register2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13

Ext.B4- Chart of Milma

Ext.B5- Copy of Milk Testor Certificate of K.Sreenivasan dtd 15/07/2010

Ext.B6- Reply of Information Act Dtd.06/06/2014

Ext-B8- Copy of Milk Testor Certificate of K.Sreenivasan dtd 15/07/2010 while cross examining

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1-Thomas Varghese

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1-Sreenivasan.K

DW2-Radhakrishnan.P

Cost Allowed

Nil.