DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 341 of 5.9.2016

                                      Decided on:         5.2.2021

Harvinder Singh s/o Nasib Singh, village Manoli PO Banur, Tehsil Rajpura, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Feberation Ltd., SCO 153-55, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
2. The Patiala Distt. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Verka Milk Plant, Patiala.
3. Verka Milk Bar, Mata Kaushalya Hospital, Govt. Hospital, Patiala through its Proprietor.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.Labh Singh Sandhu, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Manjit Singh, counsel for OPs No.1&2.

                                      Sh.Sameer Gupta, counsel for OP No.3.             

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Harvinder Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) .
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased five packets of “Verka” milk for Rs.105/-(Rs.21/-each) from OP no.3 on 22.6.2016.It is averred that while opening one packet of milk complainant got smell from the milk and also found that colour of the mils is yellow and taste was bitter. Immediately complainant approached OP No.3 and requested for return of the packets as the milk of the same was not suitable for drinking. But OP No.3 refused to take back the sold milk. Thereafter , the complainant approached the Industrial Testing Laboratory and Consulting House, Ghalori Gate, Patiala and submitted all the five packets of milk for checking the quality whether the same was suitable for drinking or not who gave the report that the above submitted sample is not of standard quality .Thus the OPs have sold the milk which was not suitable for drinking. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.105/- costs of the milk + Rs.3450/- incurred for the testing of the milk; to pay compensation  of Rs.80,000/-for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and also to pay Rs.15000/-as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written replies.
4. In the written reply filed by OPs No.1&2 preliminary objections have been raised that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has not impleaded Hoshiarpur District Co-operative Milk Producer Ltd., Verka Milk Plant Hoshiarpur, which is necessary party to the case; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that Industrial Testing Laboratory and Consulting House, Lahori Gate, Patiala is not included in the list of FSSAI i.e. Food Safety Standard Act of India and as such is not authorized to conduct the test of the of the Food items, as such the report submitted by the complainant regarding the test of milk is false and fabricated.
5. On merits, it is denied that the complainant purchased 5 packets of Verka Milk from OP No.3 as manufacturing code mentioned in the test report did not match with manufacturing code steamed on milk pouches by OP No.2.It is submitted that the OPs have packed more than one lac of milk pouches every day and there  is not even a single complaint except the complaint of the complainant. Even the complainant did not contact Customer Care Centre, so there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. After denying all other averments, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In the written reply filed by OP No.3 , it is denied that the complainant purchased any such five packets of verka milk from OP No.3.The OPs also denied all other averments made  in the complaint and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7. In support of the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA, affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Sh.S.K.Mandar, Deputy Manager alongwith documents Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
9. On behalf of OP No.3 Sh.Ricky Kohli, Proprietor of Verka Milk Bar has tendered his affidavit Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence.
10. The complainant and OPs No.1&2 have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has purchased five packets of Verka milk for Rs.105/- from OP No.3 on 22.6.2016 vide bill, Ex.C1. The ld. counsel further argued that when he opened the one packet he found smell from the milk and also found that colour of the milk was yellow and taste was bitter. The ld. counsel further argued that complainant approached OP No.3 and requested to return the packets but he refused. The ld. counsel further argued that the milk was got tested from Govt. approved laboratory and the report is on the file. So the complaint be allowed.
12. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has argued that there was no fault in the milk. The ld. counsel further argued that the report on the file regarding the testing of the milk is not from Govt. approved laboratory. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no force in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
13. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.3 has argued that the manufacturer is OPs No.1&2 and he had sold the milk. So he is not at fault. So the complaint against OP No.3 be dismissed.
14. To prove this case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint.Ex.C1 is the receipt of Verka Milk issued by OP No.3 on 22.6.2016, for five packets of milk of Rs.105/-.Ex.C2 is the letter written by the complainant to Industrial Testing Laboratory & Consulting House for testing of milk sold on 22.6.2016.Ex.C3 is the receipt of Rs.3450/- vide which testing fee of Rs.3450/- was deposited on 22.6.2016.Ex.C4 is the receipt of Industrial Testing Laboratory. It is mentioned that it is Govt. approved Laboratory and name of Harvinder Singh is mentioned .Manufacturing code is also mentioned and as per the result,  the milk was  having sour smell, shows precipitation and  shows coagulation. As per the opinion sample was not of standard quality. Similar other reports regarding the testing of the milk,Exs.C5 to C8  are on the file. In all the reports it is mentioned that sample is not of standard quality. So from the reports it is clear that all the five packets which was purchased from OP No.3 were got tested from the Govt. approved Testing House and as already mentioned above the milk was not of standard quality.
15. To rebut the case, Sh.S.K.Mandar, Deputy Manager has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written reply. On behalf of OP No.3 Sh.Ricky Kohli, has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPB and he has stated that the complainant never purchased five packets  and the bill does not pertain to alleged sale.
16. OP No.3 has stated that he never issued the receipt of five packets. The receipt Ex.C1 is on the file. As per the receipt  all the five packets were sold by Verka Milk of Mata Kaushalya Hospital, Patiala. It is signed by Proprietor. So now OP No.3 cannot wriggle from his responsibility that he had not sold these packets to the complainant. As already stated above Rs.3450/- were deposited with the laboratory on 22.6.2016.All the reports are on the file, as per reports milk was giving sour smell, showing precipitation and coagulation and it was not of standard quality. So it is clear that milk which was purchased on 22.6.2016, the expiry date of which was although 22.6.2016 was not standard quality. Verka Milk is biggest distributor of milk is bound to keep the standard of the milk. So it is clear that the milk which was purchased by the complainant was not of standard quality and the reports fortify the case of the complainant.
17. The complainant demanded the compensation of Rs.80,000/- for mental agony and harassment , Rs.15000/-as litigation expenses and Rs.3450/- laboratory fee but the compensation sought by the complainant is much higher and it is not possible to pay such huge compensation to the complainant as it is not proved on the file that by consuming the milk he has suffered from some disease.
18. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to pay Rs.105/- price of the milk, Rs.3450/- as testing fee, Rs.2500/- as compensation  and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses  to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made by the  OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:5.2.2021         

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President