BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.212/2008

Between

Complainant : A.P. Soman S/o Ponnappan

Mecheril House,

Perumthotty P.O,

Thopramkudy,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: P.A. Suhas)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

Thopramkudy Milk Producers

Co-operative Society Limited No.98(I),

APCOS,

Thopramkudy P.O.

(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)

2. The President,

Thopramkudy Milk Producers

Co-operative Society Limited No.98(I),

APCOS,

Thopramkudy P.O.

O R D E R

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
 

The complaint is filed against a milk society's deficiency in service.
 

Complainant is an agriculturist engaged in growing cattle. The complainant is also a member of the opposite party society for the last 9 years. He supplied milk in the society, this is the only livelihood of the complainant. Complainant gives 15 to 20 litres of milk everyday in the society. On 11.07.2008, complainant had received a notice from the opposite party. In the notice, the complainant is restrained to give milk in the society from 12.07.2008 onwards. Complainant approached the President and Secretary of the opposite party but have no result. He seek the assistance of DEO. Then on 30.07.2008 a mediation talk was conducted between the opposite party and the complainant in front of the DEO, but the mediation have no effect. After that he approached opposite party's President and Secretary, many times but have no result. The opposite party deliberately restrained the supply of milk of the complainant, and this caused severe financial hardships and mental agony to the complainant. He cannot procure his cattle in good manner. So it was lead to the sale of his cattle and finally he filed a petition before this Forum.

2. The opposite party filed written version. In the written version of the the opposite party, the first contention is that the complaint is not entertained under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, because the complainant is a member of Co-operative Society. The next thing is about the bye-law of society. Complainant is a member of society should obey the bye-law of society, but he violated the rules and made transaction in the name of a person who have no milch cows. Complainant gives milk in the society in name of one Mr.Rony Chirapurackal. The opposite party duly issued notice to the complainant and prohibited his transaction with society. As per the petition of complainant to the Dairy Deputy Director, Thodupuzha, the higher authority of opposite party society made an enquiry of this matter and found out that the complainant had violated the rules and conditions of opposite party's bye-law. The Deputy Director allowed the complainant to sell milk in the society in his name itself. But the complainant did not accept the decision, again he wants to sell milk in the name of Mr.Rony. Opposite party in the written version states that the Complainant did everything from Rony's membership and his only aim is the coming Election in the Society. A member can get right of voting only if he continuously supplies milk in 90 days. Opposite party did everything only according to the rules.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. Complainant is examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P3. While on cross examination of the complainant, marked Ext.R1. Opposite party examined as DW2 and one witness examined as DW1 and marked Exts.R2 to R8.
 

5. The POINT:- Complainant is the member of opposite party for the last 9 years. Ext.P2 is his pass book, his membership No. is 907. Ext.P1 is the notice given by the opposite party to the complainant. They restrained complainant's transaction with the society. As a dairy agriculturist it is very essential to deal with the society, this forum find justice in this aspect and allowed I.A. Ext.P3 is the petition given by the Complainant to Dairy Extension Officer. DEO is a witness examined as DW1 and his report is marked as Ext.R2. Ext.R2 reveals a truth that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of bye-law. Ext.R3 is the copy of the minutes of the society. In Ext.R3 decision No.10 reveals that society conducted an enquiry about the case of complainant and find out that Mr.Rony Chirapurackal have no milch cows. Complainant deliberately give milk in the name of Rony. In this circumstance, society had given Ext.P1 notice. On the side of complainant, he failed to adduce evidence against this point.

In the result, we find no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the petition dismissed. If the complainant is ready to follow the bye-law of opposite party, Milk Co-operative Society, he can enjoy the right of supplying milk in the society.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of May, 2009.

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - M.P Soman

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - C.R Sarada

DW2 - Shaji Varghese

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Letter dated 11/07/2008.

Ext.P2 - Pass Book

Ext.P3 - Copy of the petition dated 17/07/2008

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Copy of letter dated 08/06/2008.

Ext.R2 - Copy of Report dated 16/08/2008

Ext.R3 - Copy of the minutes of the society.

Ext.R4 - Copy of Personal milk report.

Ext.R5 - Copy of Personal milk report.

Ext.R6 - Copy of Personal milk report

Ext.R7 - Copy of Personal milk report.

Ext.R8 - Bilo copy