Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the complainants for refund excess amount of Rs.8/- collected from the complainants and to direct the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties to print date of manufacture, expiry date, usage date and batch number on the pockets and direct the Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.4.5 lakhs to the complainants with costs. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are thus; The 1st Opposite party has opened Cool Centre in front of its product unit on Mysore-Bangalore Road. On 18.03.2008, the Complainants 1 to 3 went that Cool Centre at 11.30 a.m. and purchased 6 packets of Butter Milk containing 200 ml. The cost of 200 ml. pocket is mentioned as Rs.3/- inclusive of all taxes, but the Sales Man of the counter collected Rs.4/- per packet from the complainant in all Rs.24/- and issued receipt bearing No.38735. When the complainant questioned with excess amount collected, the concerned sales man behaved rudely. On 28.03.2008, the complainants 4 to 7 purchased ½ liter milk packets from the Opposite parties 3 to 5. Though the actual cost was Rs.8/- per packet, they have collected Rs.9/- and so Rs.1/- in excess of the actual cost and similarly ½ liters of curds, cost was Rs.10/-, but they have collected Rs.11/- thereby Opposite parties 1, 3 to 5 collecting excess amount have committed unfair trade practice and thereby committed deficiency in service and 1st Opposite party has not mentioned the expiry date, usage date, manufacture date and batch number on the packets. The Opposite parties are selling the milk products for higher than the printed rate and practicing unfair trade practice and thereby became liable for punishment. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The notices sent to Opposite parties were served, Opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 have appeared and Opposite parties 2 & 5 have remained exparte in spite of service. 1st Opposite party has filed version, admitting the sale of 200 ml. butter milk at the rate of Rs.4/- to the complainants 1 to 3 on 18.03.2008 it is pleaded that owing to revised price, enhanced rate has to be passed on to the farmers vide effect from 13.12.2007, milk and its products revised rates were published in state newspapers notifying the general public regarding the hike of milk and its products rates and also brought to the notice and that product old printed pouch films which are in the stock of the 1st Opposite party will be in circulation till the exhausted of old pouch film stock. The 1st Opposite party is guided by the directions of 2nd Opposite party of the Milk Federation, therefore collection of excess Rs.1/- 200 ml. it is not amount to illegal trade practice in all deficiency in service. The 1st Opposite party has denied other allegations and sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3rd Opposite party has filed version denying that is collecting more amount for the sale of milk and milk products is selling as per the rate prescribed by the Mandya District Milk Union and not collected the excess amount from anybody. The complainants are not consumers with malafide intention and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite parties 2 & 4 have not filed version. 4. During trail, the Complainants 1, 5 to 7 are examined and Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 are marked. On behalf of 1st & 2nd Opposite parties, one witness is examined as RW.1. 2nd Opposite party has not produced any evidence. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by selling the butter milk at higher rate to the complainants 1 to 3 by doing unfair trade practice? 2) Whether the complainants proved that the Opposite parties 3 to 5 have sold the milk and milk products at higher rate than printed on the packets by unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service? 3) Whether the complainants proves that the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have failed to print the date of manufacture, date of expiry, usage date and batch number on the packets? 4) What order? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINTS No.1 & 3:- The undisputed fact is that; The complainants 1 to 3 purchased 6 packets of 200 ml. butter milk at the rate of Rs.4/- on 18.03.2008 in the Cool Centre established by 1st Opposite party in front of its manufacturing unit. The complainants have produced Ex.C.3 sample empty packet of the butter milk and the bill issued marked as Ex.C.4, but the defence of the Opposite party is that from 13.12.2007, itself the price of the milk and its products were revised and they were published in the newspapers and the old pouch films will be used till the stock is exhausted, therefore they have not committed any unfair trade practice. Though as per Ex.C.3 and C.4 the printed rate is Rs.3/- for 200 ml. butter milk, it is sold at the rate of Rs.4/- on 18.03.2008. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 and R.2 and also the newspapers and they clearly prove that the rates of milk and its products are revised with effect from 13.12.2007 as per the directions of 2nd Opposite party. Ex.R.2 is the rate list and the 200 ml. butter milk revised rate is Rs.4/-. The newspapers produced clearly go to shows that the hike price in the rate of milk and its products are published. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have practiced unfair trade practice by selling milk product at higher rate than printed on the packet Ex.C.3 and hence, it is not proved. 9. According to the complainants, the 1st Opposite party has not mentioned the expiry date, usage date, manufacturing date and batch number on the packets. Ex.R.3 the empty packets of the milk, curds, butter milk are produced and if we peruse the same it contains the particulars that is manufacturing date with month and year and the quantity, quality and rate usable date. Even though batch number is not mentioned there cannot be any batch number of milk product because the milk and curds, butter milk are to be used within the days mentioned on the packet. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Opposite parties 1 & 2 have contravened any provisions of Package Food Rules, therefore the complainants have failed to prove that 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. 10. POINT No.2:- According to the complainants, Opposite parties 3 to 5 sold ½ liter milk packet at the rate of Rs.9/-, though the printed rate is Rs.8/- and ½ litre of curd at Rs.11/- instead of Rs.10/- which is actual cost from the complainants 4 to 7 on 28.03.2008 and committed unfair trade practice. The Opposite parties 4 & 5 have not denied the allegations. The 3rd Opposite party has denied the allegations. But, in the evidence of the complainants 5 to 7, they purchased ½ liter milk from O.P. 4 to 7, though actually Opposite party are in 5 in the complaint. It proves that allegation made against the 3rd Opposite party for having purchased any milk or milk product is not proved, nor produced any empty packet said to be purchased from 3rd Opposite party. According to the affidavits of the complainants 5 to 7, they have purchased ½ liter milk from Opposite parties 4 to 7. So it is clear that the evidence is specific that from Opposite parties 4 & 5 actually purchased ½ liter milk and 500 gm. Curds. The Opposite parties 3 to 5 are mentioned in the complaint and complainants have deposed that Opposite parties 4 to 7 are selling and collecting Rs.1/- extra per packet. Though, they have not obtained any receipt for purchasing the milk packet and curd packet from Opposite parties 4 & 5, there is no reason to disbelieve, because Opposite party 4 and 5 have not appeared and denied the allegations. The complainants have produced the empty packets for having purchased the milk and curds from Opposite parties 4 & 5 marked as Ex.C.1 ½ litre milk empty packets and Ex.C.2 500 gm. Empty packet of curds and they are dated 28.03.2008. Therefore, they have failed to prove that Opposite parties 3 has committed unfair trade practice. So far as regarding Opposite party 4 & 5 is concerned, the evidence clearly proves that they are selling milk and curds at higher rate than printed on Ex.C.1 & C.2. Therefore, the complainants have proved that the Opposite parties 4 & 5 have committed deficiency in service by practicing unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service. 11. Though, the complainants have sought for the refund of excess amount collected and compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and direction to the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties, the complainants have failed to prove the deficiency in service against Opposite parties 1 to 3 and therefore they are not entitled to any relief sought for against Opposite parties 1 to 3. In respect of Opposite parties 4 & 5, the deficiency is proved about unfair trade practice by selling milk and curds at higher rate of Rs.1/- than printed on pocket. So Opposite parties 4 & 5 are liable to refund Rs.2/- to complainant no.4. In view of the circumstances case it is proved to award damages of Rs.2,000/- each by Opposite parties 4 to 5. 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing Opposite parties 4 & 5 to refund Rs.2/- to complainant No.4 with cost of Rs.500/- and further directed to deposit damages of Rs.2,000/- each towards Consumers Legal Aid Fund within 4 weeks. The complaint is dismissed without costs against Opposite parties 1 to 3. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 14th day of July 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
