Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-   The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking      Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony for opposite party charging Re.2/- extra over MRP on a milk packet and Rs.5,000/- as expenses. 

2.   The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant on 03-04-2012 purchased 200ml milk packet from the opposite party for which the opposite party charged Rs.9/-.  The opposite party failed to issue any receipt or bill though demanded.   A friend of complainant also chastised the complainant for charging Rs.2/- extra on milk packet.   The same amounted to unfair trade practice constituting deficiency of service.   The complainant suffered mental agony on account of such attitude of the opposite party and estimated the same at Rs.25,000/-.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.      The averments of the version of opposite party in brief as follows:

          The opposite party belongs to a middle class family and is eking livelihood by selling milk packets.   The complainant is selling milk packets for MRP rate only.   CC 7 of 2012 filed against one Lathisa was dismissed.   One Shaik Saida demanded Rs.10,000/- and got filed this case falsely when the complainant refused to part with that amount.  The opposite party never sold milk packets over MRP rate on the packets.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.  

4.  Ex.A-1 was marked on behalf of complainant.  No documents were marked on behalf of opposite party. 

5.  Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.      POINT NO.1:-  The complainant did not file any receipt or bill showing that the opposite party charged extra over MRP rate.   The contention of the complainant about milk vendors not giving bills or receipts is having considerable force.   The complainant in support of his allegations filed affidavit of one Shaik Ibrahim as if he were present.   Name of the said Ibrahim did not find place in the complaint.   

In the 1^st instance the complainant along with complaint filed unattested affidavit of Shaik Ibrahim son of Nabi.   Subsequently, the complainant filed attested affidavit of the said Ibrahim.  The contention of the opposite party is that one Shaik Saida got filed this case against him falsely as he refused to part with Rs.10,000/-.  Under those circumstances, proof of purchase of milk from the opposite party has to be established by cogent evidence.   In the absence of proof of purchase of milk from the opposite party the contention of the complainant cannot be accepted.   The complainant can inform the same to M/s Sangam Dairy authorities regarding his grievance who in turn can make enquiries and take necessary action which it appears he failed to do so.   We therefore opine that the complainant failed to establish that the opposite party charged Rs.2/- extra over MRP rate for selling Sangam Dairy Milk packet.  For the discussion made supra, we answer this point against the complainant.  

7.      POINT NO.  2  :          In view of findings on point No.1 the complainant is not entitled to any damages. 

8.      POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.  Destroy the milk packet after the appeal time.          

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2013.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party: NIL

                                                                               PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.