Presented by Sri B. K. Pati, Member . <br /> The present complaint pertains to defective goods as well as deficiency of service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> <br /> Its brief history is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant purchased two packets of OMFED milk at a cost of Rs. 10/-(Rupees ten)only each from the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt. 13/10/2008, the Opposite Party No.2(two) being the proprietor of Opposite Party No.1(one). The Opposite Party No.3(three) is the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director of OMFED limited, the Opposite Party No.4(four) is the Deputy General Manager and Marketing Head of Sambalpur Dairy of OMFED. After using one packet when the Complainant cut down a corner of the other packet and poured a cup of milk for preparation of tea, he found the same having a foul smell and the tea could not be prepared as the milk was defective. He took the rest of the milk to the Opposite Party No.1(one) where the Opposite Party No.2(two) told him that the goods may be defective but once sold he did not own any responsibility. The Complainant contends that the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) had sold the defective and old-stock milk which amounted to unfair trade practice. Such milk, if consumed, would have proved hazardous to the lives of the consumers. He claims from the Opposite Parties litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only and a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)only besides refund of the cost of the milk. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) has been set ex-parte.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version makes a blanket denial of all the allegations made by the Complainant including the purchase of the milk from him. He alleges that the Complainant never mentioned the date and time of using the milk and that milk is destroyed unless preserved in temperature below five degree Celsius. This Opposite Party also denies having adopted any unfair trade practice and that the damage of the milk is due to the Complainant's own negligence and none else is responsible for the same. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) and No.4(four) deny the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) to be their authorized agent to transact the sale of milk and milk products of OMFED at Bargarh. They contend that the matter has also not been brought to the notice of these Opposite Parties either personally or in writing by the Complainant. They say that quality of milk might have deteriorated due inadequate or no freezing either in the custody of the seller or the buyer. Denying unfair trade practice they say that the Complainant had not brought to the notice of the seller or the representative of the OMFED at Bargarh if there was no mention of date of manufacture in the packet. The Opposite Parties pray for rejection of the petition as it is having no merit.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint, the version of the Opposite Parties along with the documents filed by the Parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) who is the proprietor of the Opposite Party No.1(one) denies having sold the two packets of OMFED milk in question to the Complainant. The Complainant files a receipt Dt. 13/10/2008 issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) with its seal and signature showing Rs.20/-(Rupees twenty)only having been received by the said Opposite Party for two packets of OMFED milk. No more evidence is necessary to prove the sale of the milk to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.2(two) through Opposite Party No.1(one) counter. Mere denial of this fact can't allow the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) to evade their responsibility. It is the normal practice to use such packaged milk on the day it is bought by the Consumer and if the milk is found defective one can claim refund of price or replacement of the goods. If the seller disowns his responsibility to make good the loss sustained by the consumer then the consumer can reasonably and legitimately claim compensation for such harassment. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) and No.4(four) cannot deny their onus when the defective goods has been prepared by them. It is the usual practice by these Opposite Parties to supply their product through open vehicles and open containers and as such they cannot raise question of the absence of freezing condition.<br /> <br /> The most important aspect of the present case is that one would not knock the door of a Court of Law for as small an amount as Rs.10/-(Rupees ten)only unless his sentiment is hurt by the behavior of the seller when he complains about the defective goods/milk. <br /> <br /> In the fact and circumstance of the case we find that the Opposite Party No.1(one ) and No.2(two) have committed deficiency of service towards the Complainant by not replacing the defective milk or refunding the price thereof. The Opposite Party No.3(two) and No.4(four) are directed to be more vigilant about the quality of their product and sale thereof through the retail counters so that the interest of the consumer is not harmed and his sentiment is not hurt when he asks for legitimate replacement of the defective product, if any.<br /> <br /> Consequently, the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) are directed, jointly and severally, to refund to the Complainant Rs. 10/-(Rupees ten)only towards the cost of one packet of the OMFED milk and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only compensation/cost within thirty days hence, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.