By Sri. Jose V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Party for collecting samples milk more than what is required for sampling.

2. Fact of the case:- The Complainant's are the milk farmers of Kattimoola Ksheera Sangam. They allege that the society is collecting 100 ml each in the morning and evening from the farmers who is giving the milk and this quantity is not adding in the milk quantity and thereby each complainant is loosing around six liters of milk per month and the same is reported to the Opposite Parties somany time and not yet any relief is got and hence Complainants submitted that it is the deficiency of service from the side of Opposite Parties. Hence prayed before the forum to direct the Opposite Parties not to collect the sample milk hereafter without measuring and also directed to pay cost and compensation.

3. Notice were served to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties entered appearance and filed version and Opposite parties in their version denied all the allegation and stated that all the similar Societies are also collecting sample before mesauring the milk and in the version, 2^nd Opposite party admitted that 20 to 25 ml milk is collecting as sample in all occasions and further stated that they are acting upon the guideline of society by laws and as per the decisions of general body of the society and further stated that they have not made any unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and prayed before the Forum to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to these Opposite parties.

4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.B1 is marked. Ext.B1 is the copy of minutes book of the general body meeting of 2^nd Opposite party, held on 08.02.2014. In which it is decided to collect milk samples before measuring the milk, by the majority decisions. Here it is pertinent to note that “how much quantity of the sample is to be collected from each farmers is not decided by the general body”

5. 1^st Opposite Party filed affidavit and stated as stated in the version and he is examined as OPW1 and 2^nd Opposite party filed proof affidavit and he is examined as OPW2 and Ext.B2 is marked. Ext.B2 is the By-law of the Kattimoola Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam. Wherein there is no mentioning about the quantity of the milk to be taken for sampling milk.

6. On considering the complaint, version, affidavit and documents and the arguments submitted by the parties the Forum taken the following points for consideration.

1. Is there any deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:- On perusal of the 2^nd Opposite Party's version it can be seen that they are collecting samples between 20 – 25 ml from a farmer on all occasion and in the version of 2^nd Opposite Party it is also stated that for examination of the milk 10 to 25 ml milk is enough and after examination the balance milk and its value will be cumulated to the society and the benefit of the sample milk is entitled for the members who are giving milk to the society and OPW1 deposed that the sample is collecting in a bottle which contain an average 50 ml. OPW2 deposed that in one month, an average 200 litters milk is getting on account of sample milk. OPW2 further deposed that the sample collecting from each individual is not recording but it is measuring totally.

8. On analysing the above facts we are in the opinion that any way the 2^nd Opposite Party is collecting more milk as sample than that is actually required (ie 10 ml). The other defence by the Opposite parties is that the benefit arrived out of sample milk is entitled for the members of the society and that amount is utilising for the day to day affairs of the society. But it is not convincing because the sample is collecting not according to the quantity of milk but it is collecting equally from each customers irrespective of their quantity. So the benefit received by each individual will be same irrespective of their quantity of milk. Another contention of the Opposite Party is that all the decisions of the general body is binding on all the members. It is true, but the general body decision or the By-law not contain how much quantity is to be taken from each individual as sample.

9. Hence we opine that collecting excess milk as sample than what is required is purely a deficiency of service from the side of 2^nd Opposite Party. Since there is no role for the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties, they are unnecessarily dragged in to the Forum. Thus the point No.1 is found accordingly.

10. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found only against the 2^nd Opposite Party, 2^nd Opposite Party is liable to pay cost and compensation to the Complainant and he is entitled for the same. Since the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Party is unnecessarily dragged in to the court the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Party also entitled for cost of the proceeding and the Complainants is liable to compensate it.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the 2^nd Opposite Party is directed not to collect more than 10 ml of milk from each members as sample on all occasions hereafter and 2^nd Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) each to all the Complainants as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) each as cost of the proceedings to all the Complainants and all the Complainants are directed to pay Rs.200/- (Rupees Two hundred) each to 1^st and 3^rd opposite Parties. The 2^nd Opposite Party and the Complainants are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the Complainant and 1^st and 3^rd Opposite parties are entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced by me in the Open Forum on this the 18^th day of March 2015.

Date of Filing:03.09.2014.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainants:

PW1. Madhusoodhanan. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Jose Immanual. Deputy Director, Diary Development

Department, Kalpetta.

OPW2. Devasya. Secretary, Kattimoola Ksheera Sahakarana

Sangam.

Exhibits for the complainants:

Nil.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

B1. Copy of Minutes dt:08.02.2014.

B2. Copy of By-law.