PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 26th day of November 2011
Filed on : 12/09/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 487/2011
Between
Baisil Attipetty @ Basil A.G, : Complainant
Attipetty house, (party-in-person)
Nayarambalam P.O.,
Pin-682 509.
And
1. The Chairman, : Opposite parties
Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing (O.P.1 & 6 by adv. K. Anand
Federation Ltd., Milma Bhavan, M/s. B.S. Krishnan Associates
Pattom Palace, Kailas Annexe, Warriam road,
Thiuvanathapuram-695 004. Kochi-682 016)
Rep. by its Chairman.
2. P.T. Kujnjukrishnan Nair, (O.Ps 2 to 5 absent)
Chairman, Kerala Co-Operative
Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.,
Federation Ltd., Residing at
‘Gokulam’, Kakkavayal P.O.,
Vayanad, Vayanad Dist.
3. State of Kerala,
rep. by Secretary to Government,
Agriculture (Dairy) Department,
Thriruvananthapuram-695 001.
4. Registrar of Diary Co-operatives,
Directorate of Dairy Development,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
5. Chief Executive Officer,
Mithra Mega Mart,
District Co-operative Bank,
Kakkanad, Ernakulam.
6. Ernakulam Regional Co-operative
Milk Producers Union Ltd.,
Ernakulam Dairy,
Thripunithura P.O.,
Ernakulam-682 001.
7. The Assistant Controller, (O.P. 7 by authorized
Legal Metrology Department, representative)
Ernakulam-682 030.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
At the threshhold the opposite parties 1 and 6 raised the question of maintainability of this complaint. According to them, alleging the very same issue the complainant had filed writ petition No. 24854/2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon’ble High Court disposed off the writ petition vide order dated 26-09-2011. It is contended that this complaint on the very same cause of action is not maintainable in this forum.
2. The complainant contended that the reliefs sought for before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and in this complaint are different and distinct and so the complaint is maintainable in this forum.
3. We heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the opposite parties and went through the evidence on record.
4. The reliefs sought for in the above referred writ petition are as follows:
(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other
appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing
the 1st Respondent to take dispose of Exhibit P2
Representation of the Petitioner expeditiously as
per the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act
and Rules.
(b) Declare that that Respondents 4 to 6 have no
authority to sell the milk in Kerala by labeling on
the milk pouches, without the sanction of the
Central Government, as per the provisions of
Legal Metrology Packed Commodities Rules
2011.
(c) Direct the 1st Respondent to issue appropriate
orders to Respondents 4 & 5 to stop forthwith
selling of milk, in milk pouches with labeling the
price thereon;
(d) Direct the Respondents 4 to 6 to refund the
excess amount collected by them by labeling
from the Petitioner as per Exhibit P1 and P3.
(e) Direct the 4th Respondent to deposit the illegal
money collected from the people of Kerala by
selling milk by labeling the milk pouches from
5th September 2011 onwards for any beneficial
purpose of the people of Kerala as may be
directed by this Hon’ble Court.
(f) To grant such other appropriate reliefs to the
Petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
5. The reliefs sought for in this complaint are as
under
“(i) to return to the Complainant the difference of
Rs. 2.50 in price, under section 14(1)(C) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986;
(ii) to remit the amount, under Section 14 (1) (hb), of
Rs. 19,50,000/- collected illegally the 1st, 2nd, 5th
and 6th opposite parties by way of difference in
price of milk sold to the general public during 05-
09-2011 till date in Ernakulam District to the Legal
Services Authority, functioning in the premises of
District Court, Ernakulam.
(iii) Cost of litigation, damages and mental agony due
to the unfair trade practice : Rs. 25,000/- to the
complainant. Hence a total of Rs. 19,75,002.50
may be taken as the pecuniary limitation of this
District Hon’ble Forum, in this issue.
(iv) Such other reliefs this Hon’ble Forum may deem
fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
6. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition and in the complaint not seemingly similar but the same. Since the Hon’ble High Court has duly considered and disposed off the writ petition on merits vide a considered order we are not to sit in judgment of the issue considering doctrine of Res-judicata and strictures thereof. Therefore this complaint is dismissed in limine. The pardonable pride brought forward by the learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 6 alone draws us back from awarding costs of these proceedings.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of November 2011
