By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant is a cattle breeder and she has got three dairy cattle. The complainant availed loan from the Thiruvali Co-operative bank for breeding the cattle and to construct cattle shed. The opposite party had agreed to avail subsidy for the same and the complainant was provided a number as 5045 in society. The husband of the complainant was supplying milk to the society and he was usually purchased fodder from the society and all the financial transaction’s was done through him. The complainant on completion of six months enquired before the society about the subsidy benefit but then only to she came to know that she is only a nominal member in the society. It was used to purchase fodder from the society and the opposite party collected Rs.1,000/- per sack for the fodder and the husband of the complainant enquired about the same since the actual price of the fodder was 970/- rupees per sack. Due to the questioning of the husband the opposite party started to manipulate the quantity of the milk in the records of the opposite party i.e though the supply was in between 40 to 50 liters the society recorded the same as 30 to 40. It was usual to record zero in the bill when the milk was delivered through the children. The complainant filed complaint before the district diary development officer on 19/09/2018 against unauthorized collection for fodder, the same was enquired by the second opposite party in this complaint and he filed a report with erroneous averment. The second opposite party, the diary extension offer found that the compliant is liable to pay Rs.19,649/- to the opposite party. But the secretary of the opposite party, the first opposite party stated that the liability of the complainant as Rs.19,045/-. The complainant remitted the same before the opposite party. Moreover the report of the second opposite party contended that the complainant sought additional time to pay the amount since the work of the complainants house was in progress and the complaints husband availed loan from the Thiruvali co-operative bank for the construction of house. The complainant further submitted that she sought information regarding the cost of the KS feed and she got that it is Rs.970/- which is dated 23/07/2018 another one is dated 22/08/2018 and yet another one dated 26/08/2018. The complainant submit that the report of the second opposite party reveals that even after 13 days the opposite parties had not verified the price of feed and thus realized extra amount. The complainant alleges the opposite parties with unholy alliance and thereby the opposite parties realized exorbitant amount on feed and the same was concealed by the enquiry officer. The complainant submit that the report of the enquiry officer is based on influence of the first and third opposite parties. The complainant alleges there is malpractice in the society in which all the opposite parties are parties. The complainant submitted that due to non-receipt of milk by the opposite party, she was compelled to dispose her cattles at a merge price. The act of the opposite parties caused financial and mental difficulties to the complainant and so the complainant prays for compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- on various heads.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and they entered appearance and field version. The first and third opposite parties filed joint version and denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The complaint is without any bonafides, merits and is against the true fact. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost of the opposite party. The opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable under the law and the complainant is not a consumer under the purview of the act. The ksheera karshaka sangam Pathiryal is a co-operative society established under the co-operative societies act and all the disputes between the parties should be resolved under the provisions of the said act. The complainant is a nominal member of the society and the petition is a dispute between the society and a member and the petition is not maintainable before this Forum.
3. The opposite party submitted that they are not aware of the transaction between the complainant and Thiruvali service co- operative bank and they are not a party to any of the said transactions.
4. The opposite party admitted that the complainant is a nominal member of the sangam. As per the rules of the sangam a nominal member is a person residing within in the local jurisdiction of the sangam and required to bring milk at least 90 days within a span of 120 days. The nominal member as per the by-law of the sangam is not a member of the sangam and no member ship fee was collected from them. It is submitted that to be a member of the sangam , the interested person should make an application in the prescribed form duly filed along with the member ship and the board of directors after a meeting has to decide whether the applicant is eligible and competent to be a member. In this case the complainant was not applied for a permanent member ship and her name will not find place in the list of members. The very purpose of the sangam is to promote the milk production supporting the farmers by purchasing milk they produce at a reasonable price and to give them cattle feeds etc. at a subsidized rate and to protect them from exploitation. The subsidy is allowed to the farmers who are competent to be a beneficiary and only when it was advised by the local veterinary surgeon who is empowered by the government.
5. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant brought different quantity of milk on different days and the opposite party is as usual after checking its fat SNF content issued correct bills showing the measurements etc. The contention of the complainant that on some days the opposite party issued receipts showing measurement of milk brought as “zero” is caused on a misunderstanding. The correct measurement ware recorded in each days register entry though the receipt is showing a zero. Though the measurement shown in the receipt is zero the register represents the correct figure. The opposite party denied the allegation that by fraud a lesser measurement noted in the register kept for noting the milk brought by the complainant.
6. The contention that the opposite party has collected fodder value as 1,000/- rupees per bag instead of Rs.970/- is admitted. It was a bonafide mistake crept in the price list of the fodder and when the same was brought out by some of the farmers the opposite party without any hesitation return the excess amount collected from the farmers and members including the complainant from whom the excess amount were collected. The opposite parties has not made any undue enrichment by such sale. All the amounts collected were returned within no time when the mistake was noted.
7. The opposite parties further submitted that there was no collusion between enquiry officer and the opposite parties to defraud the compliant. No misappropriation or other illegalities were alleged or detected by anybody with respect to the functioning of sangam. The complainant is the only person alleged any complaint against the functioning of the sangam. The baseless allegation of financial and other misappropriation etc. alleged against the sangam amounts to liable and the complainant is liable for all legal consequences. The opposite parties never made or offered anything to defraud complainant. Hence the claim of complainant for damages and compensation are unsustainable. The complaint is filed with some ulterior motive and to defame the sangam and also to make confusion among the members of the sangam and so the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost of the opposite party.
8. The second opposite party filed version denying the allegations of the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the complainant was not a member in Pathiriyal ksheerolpadka Sahakarna Sangam. In order to get member ship in a milk society a member should pour milk for 90 days out of 120 days in a calendar year. Thereafter he has to submit a member ship application form before the secretary of the sahakarana sangam and the director board has to accept the same. In this complaint the complainant has not completed the formalities.
9. The opposite party submitted that he is not aware of the loan details of the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint before deputy director diary development and he directed the second opposite party for an enquiry regarding the dispute between the complainant and the society. On enquiry it was found that the complainant was a defaulter in the payment towards the cattle feed received as credit. Further it was found he must pay Rs.19,645/- towards society as cattle feed advance. The cattle feed advance was up to 23/9/2018/- as per the report submitted by the second opposite party to the deputy director, diary development. The complainant continued to pour milk up to 26/09/2018 as per the report of the secretary of the society. The complainant procured milk for Rs.604/- for the period 24/09/2018 to 26/09/2018. The total liability of the complainant towards milk society as cattle feed due as on 07/10/2018 was Rs.19,045/- (19,645-604=19,045/-). The secretary of the society issued a receipt to the complainant for an amount of Rs.19,045/-. The opposite party submitted that the price of cattle feed is fixed by the concerned company. The cattle feed business is done among the society and the milk pouring beneficiary. The diary extension officer places no role in this respect. The second opposite party further submitted that on further enquiry it was found that the secretary has to pay Rs.90/- as excess cattle feed which is recovered from petitioner. The deputy director diary development has instructed the secretary to refund Rs.90/- to the beneficiary as per the enquiry report. The second opposite party further submitted that his report is entirely based on the records available before him and there was no any inclination on either side from his part. He submitted that the society secretary had committed mistakes in recovering the excess amount of cattle feed than the actual figure and upon instructions of the second opposite party. The secretary has corrected those mistakes. He has submitted that the complainant approached the second opposite party but he could not convince him and moreover he quarreled with the second opposite party and threatened that he will burn out the milk society. He submitted that the presence of the complainant turned to be arrogance and caused disturbances in his duties. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint.
10. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of the complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A10. Ext. A 1 is copy of enquiry report submitted by diary development officer dated 09/10/2018. Ext. A2 is copy of cattle feed details. Ext. A3 is copy of cattle insurance policy. Ext. A4 is loan pass books Thiruvali service cooperative bank Member No.D617 and Member No.D779. Ext. A5 is copy of receipt for payment of Rs.19,045/- issued by the first opposite party Ext. A6 is copy of receipts 4 in number issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A7 is copy of tokens issued by the first opposite party to the complainant (3 in number). Ext. A8 is copy of cattle feed purchase report (not legible). Ext. A9 is copy of letter issued by assistant controller legal metrology Manjeri. Ext. A10 is copy of information issued from deputy director of diary development information officer to the complainant dated 01/11/2018. Opposite party produced documents marked as Ext. B1 to B6. Ext. B1 is copy of email authorizing the second opposite party to enquire about the complaint. Ext. B2 is copy of enquiry report dated 09/10/2018. Ext.B3 is copy of letter issued by secretary of pathiryal sheerlopadhaka sahakarna sangam issued to the diary extension officer Wandoor . Ext. B4 is copy of details of cattle feed advance dated 17/12/2018. Ext. B5 is copy of direction issued by the deputy director diary development to the first and third opposite parties. Ext. B6 is copy of milk purchase report from 03/03/2018 to 26/09/2018.
11. Heard both side’s perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration
- Whether the complainant is member of the opposite party Pathiriyal ksheerolpadaka saharkarna sangam?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and cost.
12. Point No.1
The complainant claims that she is a member of pathiriyal ksheerolpadaka sahakarana sangam. But the opposite parties submitted that the complainant is only nominal member and to claim the benefit of a member the complainant has to undergo certain legal formalities which the complainant has not undergone. The opposite parties contended that the complainant has to submit application for membership and also the complainant is liable to pour certain quantity of milk to the society for a definite period regularly. The complainant has not done the legal formalities and she is only a nominal member in the society. The complainant has not produced document to show that she was a member as claimed and she has complied the formalities as required by the opposite parties. So, the submission of the opposite parties is that the rights and privileges of a member of the society is not available to nominal member of the society. Since there is no contra evidence against the contention of the opposite parties, we accept the contention of the opposite party that the complainant was nominal member and she has not applied duly for the membership and the director board of the sangam not approved the member ship of the complainant.
13. Point No.2
The complainant alleges that she bought milky cows and also erected cattle shed by availing loan from Thiruvali Saharakarana bank about 4,00,000/- rupees. She did it based on assurance that the opposite parries will avail subsidy for the same from the society. Her husband Mr, Abdul Kareem was pouring milk regularly in the society. The cattle feed also was purchased from the society through her husband. On completion of 6 months only she could realize that her member ship is only as nominal membership and she is not entitled the subsidy benefit from the society. Moreover, the opposite party collected excess cost for the cattle feed. Complainant submit that instead of 970/- rupees the opposite party realized 1,000/- rupees per cattle feed bag. More over the opposite party recorded quantity of milk poured in the society incorrectly. The act of the opposite parties were with intention to deceive the complainant. Hence the complainant seek compensation from the opposite parties. The complainant claims Rs.1,60,000/- on account of financial loss and Rs.90,000/- on account of expenses met for cow shed and also an amount of Rs.65,000/- for inconvenience and hardship suffered by the complainant.
14. The perusal of documents shows that as per Ext.A1 it can be seen that the opposite parties one and three had collected Rs.90/- in excess against actual cost of cattle feed of three bags. Ext. A9 shows that the legal metrology department has taken action against the first and third opposite parties on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant. So what can be inferred from the averments in the Ext. A1 that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the first and third opposite parties. But at the same time the legal metrology department has acted against the opposite parties and now the issue arises whether it is legible to further proceeded against first and third opposite parties against the same cause of action. The commission is not inclined to pass further orders against opposite parties in the light of Ext.A9.
15. The complainant claims that the opposite parties one and three had assured availing subsidy benefit to the complainant. But there is no document to show the same. The claim of the complainant is to allow Rs.1,60,000/- on account of financial loss and claimed for Rs. 90,000/- on account of mental agony, which is not supported with any document. In the absence of proper documents, we find that complainant is not entitled for relief as claimed. It appears the complainant was a nominal member of the society and due to the same she was not availed subsidy benefit for the purchase of dairy cattle and thereby provoked to file this complaint against the opposite parties. At the same time the first and third opposite parties collected excess amount for the cattle feed which further accelerated the proceedings of the complainant against the opposite parties one and three,though the legal metrology department acted against the first and third opposite parties. There were sufficient reasons to proceed against the opposite parties by the complainant. The complainant filed this complaint against opposite parties alleging unfair trade pratice and deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience, hardship and financial loss to the complainant and so claimed huge amount as compensation. But the issue of collection of excess cattle feed charge is seen addressed by the legal metrology department. Hence, the commission is not inclined to allow the complainant.
In the light of above fact and circumstances the complaint stand dismissed.
Dated this 15th day of May , 2023.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A10
Ext.A1: Copy of enquiry report submitted by diary development officer dated
09/10/2018.
Ext.A2: Copy of cattle feed details.
Ext A3: Copy of cattle insurance policy.
Ext A4: Loan pass books Thiruvali Service cooperative bank Member No.D617 and
Member No. D779.
Ext A5: Copy of receipt for payment of Rs.19045/- issued by the first opposite party
Ext.A6: Copy of receipts 4 in number issued by the first opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext.A7: Copy of tokens issued by the first opposite party to the complainant (3 in
number.
Ext A8: Copy of cattle feed purchase report (not legible).
Ext A9: Copy of letter issued by assistant controller legal metrology Manjeri .
Ext A10: Copy of information issued from deputy director of diary development
information officer to the complainant dated 01/11/2018.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B 6
Ext.B1: Copy of email authorizing the second opposite party to enquire about the
complaint.
Ext.B2: Copy of enquiry report dated 09/10/2018.
Ext.B3: Copy of letter issued by secretary of pathiryal sheerlopadhaka sahakarna
sangam issued to eh diary extension officer Wandoor
Ext.B4: Copy of details of cattle feed advance dated 17/12/2018.
Ext.B5: Copy of direction issued by the deputy director diary development to the first
and third opposite parties .
Ext.B6: Copy of milk purchase report from 03/03/2018 to 26/09/2018.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
