BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.19 of 2008.<br /> Instituted On: 05.03.2008.<br /> Date of Service: 27.03.2008.<br /> Decided On:14.08.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Naresh Kumar son of Amrit Lal, resident of House No.7, Ward No.9, Makhu, Tehsil: Zira, Distt.Ferozepur.<br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. The Punjab State Milk Federation Ltd. (Milkfed) SCO no.153-154, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.<br /> 2. Balbir Singh, the then General Manager, Co-Op.Milk Union, Faridkot now posted at Govt.Cattle Feed Factory, Bhattian (Khanna)<br /> 3. R.K.Sharma, the then D.M.(Accounts) Co-Op.Milk Union, Faridkot, now posted at verka Milk Plant, Mohali.<br /> 4. Darshan Singh, Manager Procurement, Co-Op Milk Union, Kot Kapura Road, Faridkot.<br /> 5. Gurjant Singh, the then Centre Incharge, Milk Collection Centre, Moga now at Milk CollectionCentre, Aulakh (Malout)<br /> <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Gurjant Singh Maan, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.R.P.Shahi, Adv.counsel for OPs. <br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Naresh Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against The Punjab State Milk Federation Ltd. (Milkfed), Chandigarh (herein-after referred to as ‘Milkfed’) and others-opposite parties directing them to pay Rs.248425/- + Rs.22355/- as interest @ 12% per annum on account of milk supplied at milk collection centre, Moga.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Naresh Kumar complainant is bulk supplier of cow and buffalo milk to Milk Collection Centres (Milkfed) at Ferozepur, Faridkot and Moga. That the OPs-Milkfed is semi government organization owned and controlled by the state government and deals in supply of milk and milk products to general public. That the complainant had supplied milk at Milk Collection Centre, Moga on the request of General Manager, Faridkot from 1.4.2007 to 16.5.2007 total weighing 111044 kg (buffalo milk and 245121 kg (cow milk) @ Rs.220/- per kg fat whereas the proposal made and duly approved by the Centre Incharge was Rs.230/- per kg fat. That the rate given by the OPs-Milkfed at Ferozepur was higher than Faridkot and Moga. That the complainant put up an application to General Manager, Milk Collection Centre, Moga through proper channel for enhancement of the rate as the Nestle India Limited given the higher rate to its suppliers than the rates given by the OPs-Milkfed. Consequently, the Manager (Procurement) also recommended/ approved this proposal and forwarded it to the then General Manager Balbir Singh. That there was implied contract between the parties but the OPs-Milkfed has failed to perform their part of contract. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Milkfed. OPs-Milkfed appeared through Sh.R.P.Shahi Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the OPs-Milkfed is a semi government body owned and controlled by the state government while the complainant is doing the business of milk collection; that the complainant collected the milk from diary owners and farmers and then supplied the same to OPs-Milkfed. As such the milk collection and milk supplied is purely a business of commercial nature, so the complainant is not covered under the definition of a ‘Consumer’ under the Act; that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as there was no office of OPs-Milkfed at Moga. The main office is situated at Faridkot and some time ago a sub office was opened by the Milk Union Faridkot for milk collection at Moa and the same was closed on 31.5.2007; that the complaint as framed is not maintainable as the complainant claimed the recovery of Rs.248425/- + interest thereon in the present complaint which is purely of a civil nature, so the complainant should seek the remedy if any, from the civil court. On merits, it was averred by the OPs-Milkfed that as per their rules and norms, after every ten days the payments are being disbursed to the milk suppliers, so if the rate of OPs-Milkfed were not acceptable to the complainant then there was no reason to continue the further supply of milk to them. All other allegations made in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same deserves dismissal.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Milkfed tendered the affidavit of Sh.M.K.Tayal, Deputy Manager Ex.R1, copies of office note and orders Ex.R2 to Ex.R20 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have perused the written arguments filed by both the parties and gone through the documents on file.<br /> 7. In the instant case, first of all, the complainant has to prove if he is a ‘consumer’ as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The allegations in the complaint show that the complainant has demanded higher rate of milk procured by the OPs-Milkfed. The OPs-Milkfed are paying the price @ Rs.220/- per kg fat whereas the complainant has demanded Rs.230/- per kg fat for the period 1.4.2007 to 16.5.2007 of milk total weighing 111044 kg (buffalo milk) and 245121 kg (cow milk). Thus, the complainant has not hired the services of the OPs-Milkfed for consideration.<br /> 8. Moreover, the present dispute, if any, between the parties is of a civil nature because the complainant has alleged the violation of terms and conditions of the contract entered into between them. The complainant has demanded the higher rate than the rate paid by the OPs-Milkfed. Thus the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. This fact further finds corroboration from the frame of the complaint because in the head note of the complaint, it is mentioned that the suit for recovery of Rs.248425/- plus Rs.22355/- as interest @ 12% per annum. In the prayer clause, it is also mentioned that the claim of the complainant be decreed with costs. Therefore, instead of filing the civil suit, the complainant has wrongly approached this Forum for the recovery of Rs.248425/- by filing this complaint in order to save ad volerum court fee on the amount of Rs.248425/-. <br /> 9. Furthermore, if the rate of Rs.220/- per kg fat was not acceptable to the complainant then no explanation is forthcoming as to why he continued to give the supply of milk to the OPs-Milkfed. It is not the case that he had stopped to supply the milk on the ground of less rate given to him. Thus, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Milkfed as alleged. <br /> 10. To support the aforesaid contentions, the OPs-Milkfed produced the affidavit of Sh.M.K.Tayal, Deputy Manager Ex.R1, copies of office note and orders Ex.R2 to Ex.R20. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of complainant and we discard the same. <br /> 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:14.08.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />