By Sri. Jose V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed against the Opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get cost and compensation due to the unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite parties.

2. Complaint in brief: The Complainant purchased one packet of milk from the 2^nd Opposite Party which is produced and marketed by 1^st Opposite party. On 7 PM 24.02.2014 the Complainant purchased on packet of milk from 1^st Opposite Party for giving tea to the guests for a special reception scheduled in the Complainant's house. In the packet, the date was written as 25.02.2014 and when which was boiled shortly and it become addle (rotten). Without knowing it, the tea was given to her son and also given to the guests. They told that there was a taste of sour in the tea, then only the Complainant noticed that the milk become addle. More over the son of the Complainant started stomach ache after drinking the tea. So the Complainant contacted in the phone number which is given in the milk packet (0497 2746930), then the Complainant could realise that the number was a Kannur number, the recipient of the phone call submitted that they have not supplied the milk in Wayanad District. So the Complainant directly went to the 2^nd Opposite party's shop and explained the damage of milk. The 2^nd Opposite Party stated that they don't know anything about it and given a phone number for enquiry ie 9745989014. When the Complainant contacted in that number and when the matter is intimated to the person who attended the phone named Jaison said that somany persons telling the same complaint and he cannot do anything and further submitted that the Complainant can do anything as he wishes and he misbehaved also. Then one Alex who introduced him as field executive of 1^st Opposite Party from phone No.8289896505 contacted the Complainant and said that he will came and meet the Complainant, to talk the issue. On 25.02.2014 two representative from Milma Wayanad diary came to the Complainant and offered a new milk packet and said that the cover which is used to pack the milk is collected from Kannur due to the shortage stock of their packet and also said that the date in the packet will affix before 3 days of packing and they has nothing to do with it. The Complainant further stated that it is not a matter of Rs.18, it is an unfair trade practice against the public hence it cannot be tolerated and the Complainant is redicooled by the 3^rd Opposite party and caused much difficulties due to the supply of damaged milk by the MILMA and further stated that the Opposite party has not complied the formalities specified in the Package Commodity Act, ie not affixed the packing date, Expiry date, Manufacturing date and batch number etc but furnished the untrue details to misrepresent the consumers. Hence the Complainant prayed before the Forum to direct the Opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under various heads due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of Opposite parties.

3. Notices were served to Opposite parties and they filed version. 1^st Opposite party denied all the allegations and only admitted that after knowing the allegations the representative of 1^st Opposite party directly met the Complainant on 25.02.2014 and talk about the matter and also stated that the disputed milk packet is taken from Kannur diary since the packet of 1^st Opposite party is over and further stated that the date given on the packet indicate the last date of use and no complaint will cause due to the manufacturing or processing defects and for keep up the relation with the customers only they have visited the Complainant to explain these things.

4. And further stated that the remaining milk packet with the 2^nd Opposite party is collected and checked by 1^st Opposite party and found no defect and further stated that 1^st Opposite party is manufacturing about 140000 litre of milk per day with much care and attention, till day no complaints were reported about our products and after proper checking and after completing all the formalities only the product will be supplied and the 1^st Opposite party is acting only after performing all the formalities under specification and guidelines of food safety act and under the ISO 22 000 2005 international standards. Hence prayed before the Forum to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to this Opposite party. And 2^nd Opposite party in their version denied all the allegations in the complaint and stated that he used to sell about 60 packet of milk every day and the said day also he has sold about 60 packet and no complaints were reported from any where. The address mentioned in the complaint also not belonged to him and when he got the packet from the 1^st Opposite party he used to keep the packet in a sterilised condition and till the sale, they use to take all the precautionary measures to keep the milk clean and safely and he further stated that any manufacturing defect or any mistake happened due to the handling of milk also the 2^nd Opposite party is not responsible and if found any such a defect, the other Opposite parties are liable to compensate for the same and prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to this Opposite party.

5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and she is examined as PW1 and MO1 (a) & (b) marked. MO1(a) is the milk packet of milma pasteurised toned milk wherein the date is written as 25.02.2014 BH for use by date see stamp. MO1(b) is the printing in MO1(a) wherein it is written as customer care phone number 04972746930 e-mail st Opposite party.

6. On analysing the complaint, version, document, evidence and over all evaluation of the entire evidences we raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:- The Complainant alleged that the milk is spoiled when it is used and when contacted in the phone number given in the phone number it is understand that it was a Kannur number and the person who took the phone replied that they have not sold the milk in Wayanad district. So the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite party for enquiry. Then the 2^nd Opposite party given a phone number of the supplier of milk ie 9745989016 when the Complainant contacted in that number he behaved badly and was not ready to hear her Complainant.

8. There after the representative of 1^st Opposite party one Mr. Alex called the Complainant over telephone and on 25.02.2014 and the representative of 1^st Opposite party came to the house of the Complainant and stated that the disputed packet of milk is temporarily taken from Kannur diary and offered to replace the milk and not taken any steps to redress the grievances of the Complainant. It is pertinent to note that the Opposite party No.1 and 3 are very well reputed firm and they are bound to provide proper service and to follow the Food Safety Act. Here in we see that MO1 is the packet of the disputed milk, where in there is no manufacturing date, there is no serial number or batch number, and wherein it can be seen that it is manufactured and packed by M.R Co Op milk producers union UTD Kannur diary Pallikunnu P.O, Kannur – 670 004, even though it is admittedly manufactured from the Wayanad Diary. Even though the Opposite party No.1 and 3 explained the reason why the kannur diary packets were used for filling the product of Wayanad diary, they could have resolved the Complainant at the very instent of Complaint but all of them said lame excuses. it is a clear latches of the Opposite parties they could have taken have the matter with utmost care and safety and when a call of Complainant if receive the answer should be specific and proper explanation and guidelines should be given to the customer. Here in this case when the Complainant rang up to the mentioned phone number the replay was that they have not supplied the milk in Wayanad District. Thereafter the Complainant rushed to the 2^nd Opposite party to get the details of the manufacturer or supplier, then the 2^nd Opposite party gave the number of one driver ie 9745989016. When the Complainant contacted this number also the Complainant is redicooled by the holder of the phone number and after knowing this Complainant also Opposite Parties have not taken any effective measures to solve the issues. More over as seen in the MO1 packet and deposition of OPW1 it clearly proves that this packeting and sales is a mis branding. All these are a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of 1^st and 3^rd Opposite parties. Here the point No.1 is decided accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite parties they are jointly and severally liable to pay cost and compensation and the Complainant is entitled for the same.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the whole amount.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23^rd day of September 2015.

Date of Filing:26.02.2014

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Sajitha Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. D.S. Konda. Senior Manager, Wayanad Diary.

Exhibits for the complainant:

MO1(a) Milk Packet.

MO1(b) Printing in MO1(a)

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

B1. Copy of License No.10012041000098.

B2. Copy of Certificate of Approval. dt:10.07.2014.

B3. Copy of DNV Business Assurance Food Safety System Certificate.

B4. HACCP Manual.

B5. Copy of Quality Contral Register. dt:22.02.2014.

B6. Copy of Statement.

B7. Certificate of Analysis – HTM.

B8. Copy of Bye Laws.