Karnataka

Kolar

CC/145/2023

Smt.Mahalakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Kolar Dist Co .Operative Milk Union Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B.Safasivachari

07 May 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 23/11/2023

Date of Order: 07/05/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:07^th DAY OF MAY 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:145/2023

 

Smt. Mahalakshmi

W/o Ramanachari,

Aged about 55 years,

Behind Gulpet Police Station,

Rahamath Nagar,

Kolar.

(Rep. by B. Sadasivachari, Advocate)             ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

Managing Director,

Kolar District Co-Operative

Milk Union Limited,

NH-75, Hutturu Post,

Kolar Taluk.

(Rep. by Sri. T. Amarendra, Advocate)          ……Opposite Party.                                                                                                                                      

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against OP and praying for directions to the OP to handover a Milk Booth situated at SNR hospital compound, Kolar along with amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, mental agony, loss of precious time and to pay interest @ 2% per month till its realization in the ends of justice and equity.

 

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant is an un-employed, who applied for sanction of Milk Booth in the compound of SNR Hospital accordingly as per contract on 10/03/2023 complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- with the OP and thereon, OP issued receipt bearing No.3597 dated: 13/03/2023 towards security deposit.  Further complainant also paid membership fee of Rs.1,000/-, Documentation charges of Rs.50/-, entrance fee of Rs.100/-and in total he had paid Rs.51,150/-.  It is stated that, on consideration of the requisition of the complainant that, the OP has granted for sanction of Milk Booth to the complainant conditionally on 15/05/2023 by fixing Rs.2,400/- monthly rent to be paid on or before 5^th of every month.  Further, the sanction order came into effect from 01/06/2023 for 2 years.

 

3. Further complainant submits that, after sanction order, but the OP has not at all handed over the possession of the Milk Booth to the complainant as promised.  Further stated that, the complainant demanded the OP to handover the possession orally and through letter, but the OP failed to comply as agreed to deliver the possession of the Milk Booth at the agreed place.  Hence the complainant alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the OP and files this present complaint.

 

4. Upon admission of complaint and on issuance of notice, OP appeared through his counsel and filed its version. 

 

5. In the version it is contended that, complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts.  Further contended that, there is no relationship of the buyer and the seller between the complainant and the OP and as defined under section 2(10) and 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and there is no such deficiency of service committed by the OP as alleged by the complainant.  Further contended that, the Kolar Chikkaballapura District Co-operative Milk producer societies union limited, Kolar Milk Producing District Organization.  It is contended that, it is a District level Apex body of milk co-operatives in Karnataka which aims to collide remunerative returns to the farmers by eliminating the middleman and also serve the interest of the consumers by providing quality milk products which are good value for money, and the same is registered under co-operative societies Act 1959. 

 

6. It is contended that, OP Union is processing a Milk Booth situated at SNR Hospital Premises for the purpose of sale of Milk and its products and to that effect the said Milk Booth was leased to one Reddappachar S/o Late Narayana Char on concessionary charge basis from the year 24/3/2010 and time to time, the said lease period on the basis of concessionary charge basis extended as per the terms and condition of the Union.  Accordingly, the said lease period on concessionary charge basis continued by the Union in favour of the said Reddappachar for a period of three years from 06/09/2021 as per the orders passed by the respondent Union.  Subsequently, the said Reddappachar died on 8/07/2022 and to that effect his wife by name Smt. Nirmala approached the Union and requested to run the said Milk Booth on concessionary charge basis as per the orders dated 06/09/2021.  On humanitarian consideration, the respondent Union allowed her to continue to run the said Milk Booth on concessionary Charges basis on the said terms and conditions temporarily until further orders.  

 

7. Further contended that, complainant was approached the OP Union to run the said Milk Booth situated at SNR Hospital compound on concessionary charge basis.  It is contended that, OP Union considered her request and passed an order in her favour to run the said Milk Booth on concessionary charge basis subject to terms and conditions.  Accordingly complainant deposited the requisite security deposit to the OP as per the said orders.  It is also contended that, subsequently complainant herself approached the OP Union and revealed the fact that, deceased Reddappachar and husband of the complainant or brothers and hence requested the OP Union to run the said Milk Booth by the wife of the said Reddappachar.  On Humanitarian consideration OP allowed the Smt. A. Nirmala the widow of the said Reddappachar to continue to run the said Milk Booth.  Accordingly orders dated: 06/09/2021 is passed in favour of the said Nirmala.  Hence it is contended that, OP is ready to return the security deposit paid by the complainant if she approached the OP.  Further contended that, by denying all the allegation averred in the complaint and finally prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

8. In order to prove the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence.

 

9. On the basis of the complaint averments and the evidenced placed on record the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
4. What Order?

  

We have heard the arguments.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:

 

Point No. (1):-            In the Affirmative.

Point No. (2) & (3):-    Are in the Affirmative.

Point No. (4):-             As per the final orders

                                 for the following.

 

                             REASONS

 

10. Point No.(1):-  On perusing the pleadings of the parties, it is an undisputed fact, that the Kolar Chikkaballapura District  Co-operative Milk producer societies union limited, Kolar Milk Producing District Organization and it is a District level Apex body of milk co-operatives in Karnataka which aims to collide remunerative returns to the farmers by eliminating the middleman and also serve the interest of the consumers by providing quality milk products which are good value for money, and the same is registered under co-operative societies Act 1959.  The above said contention of the complainant clearly demonstrate that, they being the service provider selling the Milk and its Products to the customers through allotting the Milk Booth like in favour of the Reddappachar or his wife A. Nirmala.  Hence though OP contended that, there is no trader and buyer relationship between the complainant and the OP, but OP being the service provider and selling the Milk and its Products through Milk Booth and they also be considered as sellers and on receiving the deposit amount by the complainant in order to sell their products, obviously the relationship between the complainant and OP are also established the relationship of seller and buyer.  Hence the contention raised by the OP that, the complainant is not a consumer holds no water.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(1) in the Affirmative.

 

11. Point No.(2) & (3):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake brevity these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

12. In order to prove the case of the parties both parties filed their affidavit evidence.  On perusal of the affidavit evidence, both the parties repeated the same facts in the affidavit as averred in their pleadings.  On perusal of the pleadings and the evidence placed on record, it is an undisputed fact, that the OP received the security deposit from the complainant in order to allot the Milk Booth at SNR Hospital premises but due to reasons the said Milk Booth continued by the one Nirmala who is the wife of the deceased Reddappachar, but not allotted to the complainant regarding the Milk Booth in question.  Furthermore, it is worth to note that, when the OP due to reasons when not allotted the Milk Booth in question immediately they ought to have refunded the security deposit with apology to the complainant which leads to filing of this complaint.  Further the act of the OP itself seems to be deplorable one.  However, OP contended that, complainant is the relative of the present beneficiary by name Nirmala and on the consent of complainant only they allowed said Nirmala to continue and run the Milk Booth in question, but however, OP not placed any evidence to support their contention.  The complainant drawn our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2018(4) KCCR SN 437 (SC).  On perusal of the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the case of the complainant the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case of the complainant.  Under such circumstances after receiving security deposit from the complainant, but not allotted the Booth or failed to immediately refund the security deposit, all these activities clearly establishes that, OP are deficient in their service.  Hence the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint, if the OP is unable to handover the Milk Booth situated at SNR Hospital compound in such event they are directed to handover the Milk Booth in other place suitable for the complainant to earn her livelihood or alternatively OP is directed to refund the total amount of Rs.51,150/- along with interest @ 9.5% P.a from the date of deposit till its realization and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(2) and  (3) are in the Affirmative.

 

13. Point No. (4):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1) to (3) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

  

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby allowed with cost.
2. That the OP i.e. Managing Director, Kolar District Co-Operative Milk Union Limited, is hereby directed to allot the Milk Booth at SNR Hospital as prayed in the complaint, for any reasons if not possible to allot the Milk Booth at SNR Hospital premises in such event alternatively allot the Milk Booth in favour of the complainant in some other place which is feasible to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which OP is directed to refund the total amount of Rs.51,150/- along with interest @ 9.5% P.a from the date of deposit till its realization along with compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
3. Further OP is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards to cost of the proceedings.
4. That the OP shall comply the order shown at Sl.No.(1) & (2) within 30 days and submit compliance report within 45 days.
5. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

         (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 07^th DAY OF MAY 2024)

 

 

       MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT