1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 25.06.2020 he purchased one packet of milk for Rs. 23/- to feed his child and while started to boil, he found the milk lost its consistency and became stale and within few minutes it became cheese so also some sort of smell came out of it.  Finding such defects he contacted with the O.P. No. 1 and demanded for its replacement, who denied to replace nor refunded the amount, Thus, being in need, complainant purchased another packet and again paid Rs. 23/- which also caused the same defectiveness.On enquiry, O.P. No.1 replied that the alleged product was manufactured by O.P. No. 2 and no bill can be issued and neither given the complaint book nor lodged complaint with O.P. No. 2, thus being harassed he filed this case with a prayer to get back Rs. 46/- for two milk packets and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation.

2. O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case and filed his counter versions admitting the sale of alleged 2 nos. of milk packets to the complainant and contended that he works only on commission basis under O.P. No. 2 and he sold the alleged milk packets on the same day when he received the same from the O.P. No. 2.  Further contended that since O.P. No. 2 has not issued any bills against the milk packets, as such he has not issued any bill to the complainant and with other contentions, showing his no liabilities, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.

3. O.P. No. 2 appeared in this case and filed their counter versions admitting the manufacturing of the alleged products and O.P. No. 1 as their authorized dealer, but have contended that it is the duty of seller to ensure that the customers get a defect free product especially a milk product – a human necessity keeping in proper cold chain to avoid perishebility.  It is also contended that it is the duty of customer to verify the manufacturing date during purchase, as the milk packets are made under strict quality check sealing and cold chaining under the supervision of qualified supervising technicians, hence there is no scope of any chance for using any out dated packages and with contentions, showing their no liabilities, they prayed to dismiss the case.

4. Parties have filed certain documents in support of their submissions.  Perused the record and material documents available therein.
    
5. It is an admitted fact by the parties that the complainant has purchased two numbers of milk packets for Rs. 46/- to feed his child from the O.P. No.1 being manufactured by the O.P. No.2.  It is also admitted fact that the milk packets were curdled immediate after boiling.  The allegations of complainant is that after he found that the milk packets are out of date on the day of purchase, he contacted with the O.P. No.1 and enquired about the non mentioning of date and quality of those milk packets, but did not get any satisfactory answer, whereas the submissions of O.P. No.1 is that he being only a commission agent of O.P. No.2 has sold the alleged packets on the same day when he received from the O.P. No.2, whereas the contentions of O.P. No.2 is that as per their agreement made with the O.P. No.1  the ownership of the milk products are transferred to the dealer immediate after the products are delivered to them and they have no liabilities for any quality, after delivery of the products to their authorized dealer.  Submitting their contentions parties have claimed as per their prayers.

6. We have gone through the documents and counter versions of the parties.  The counter version, documents and submissions of O.P. No.2 shows that it is the duty on the part of the O.P. No. 1 to ensure that the customer gets a defect free product, especially a milk product and while storing the milk and milk products proper cold chain is maintained to avoid perishability and to maintain proper temperature.  If such version will be accepted, than it is the prime duty of the O.P. No.2 to check and verify on regular intervals that whether their authorized dealers are maintaining the proper procedure or not and also no documents are filed by the O.P. No.2 to that effect to prove that the O.P. No.1 has maintained and followed the rules for proper procedure to keep the milk and milk products cold under specific temperature, whereas the agreement document filed by the O.P.No.2 does not reflect any conditions to that effect.  Hence we think, the O.P. No. 2 only to avoid their liabilities, without checking and verifying the procedure of maintenance carried out by their authorized dealers, have intended to push the burden of proof on the O.P. No. 1, which is not justified.Further it is well settled of law that for any act of their commission agent, the concerned company is solely liable.

7. Further we have carefully gone through the documents and found that O.P. No.2 has filed one document i.e. agreement which was executed as on 01.04.2012.  From the said agreement it is ascertained that the agreement was executed between O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 on 01.04.2012 which is valid only for 1 year i.e. from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 and there is no evidence to show that the said agreement is still in force either in the way of extension or renew or any modifications as on the date of cause of action. Hence we think without existence of any proper guidelines as on date of cause of action, the conditions of agreement dated 01.04.2012 cannot be in force over the dealers, as there is specific provision for extension or renew or modifications in the aforesaid agreement.

8. Further we have found that the O.P. No.2 has filed the statements of their different authorized dealers to prove the fact that no customer complaints ever received by those dealers on the date of cause of action.  It is ascertained from those statements that all those documents were obtained after lapse of five months of filing of case and we think it is quite impossible to remember a fact after a long gap and might the dealers have submitted their statements as per the insistence of O.P. No. 2, as no letter was filed by the O.P.No.2 regarding asking for any statements from their authorized dealers.

9. Further the O.P.No.2 has filed another document i.e. Quality Testing Report of milk on dated 25.06.2020 which shows that they have tested total milk of 8300.00 Ltr. and prepared the report accordingly, whereas their another document i.e. Product wise & party wise sale bill register dated 25.06.2020 which shows that they have sold 9250 ltr. which is also a self contradictory report.From the two numbers of documents it is ascertained that O.P. No. 2 has prepared testing report for 8300 ltr. whereas they have sold milk of 9250 ltr. excess of milk of 950 ltr. which is also matter of surprise. We think, out of those 950 ltr. the alleged two numbers of milk packets were sold.

10. From the above discussions, we feel, the alleged milk packets were out dated and are defective in nature which were sold to the complainant.  And purchasing after those milk packets, complainant found those as outdated and were curdled, for which he must have suffered some sort of mental agony and sustained financial loss, as such he is entitled for adequate compensation. Keeping in view of his sufferings, we feel Rs. 5000/- which includes all, will meet the end of justice.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                 ORDER

        Complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged products, is herewith directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- which includes all, to the complainant within one month from the receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 10% from the date of purchase of the alleged products till payment.

        Pronounced the order in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of December, 2020.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.