DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 24^th day of March 2011

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

Date of filing: 21/08/2010

(C.C.No.106/2010)

Joseph

S/o.Varghese,

Challangal House,

Pallikunnu (PO),

Mannarkkad

Palakkad - Complainant

V/s

1. The Secretary

Vellapadam Ksheerasangham

Payyanadam, Mannarkkad

(By Adv.A.V.Ravi)

2. The President

Vellapadam Ksheerasangham

Payyanadam, Mannarkkad

(By Adv.A.V.Ravi) - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief :

Complainant is a member of opposite party's Society. Complainant used to deliver milk obtained from cows owned by him to the said society. Complainant was availing the service of opposite parties for this purpose for about 14 years and he is also receiving bonus from the opposite party’s society. During the first seven months of current year complainant could not deliver milk and the reason that the cow was conceived was duly informed to the opposite party. After the cow has delivered a calf, complainant again went to supply milk to opposite party on 19/8/2010. The President of the society refused to receive the same. When complainant requested for the refusal to be in a written form, a letter dated 19/8/2010 was issued to the complainant. It is stated in the letter that as the complainant has not delivered milk regularly, Society in the meeting dated 28/6/2010 has decided not to collect milk from the complainant. According to the complainant, the reason for refusal is without any basis and no intimation of the said decision was placed either on the notice board or intimated personally to the member. This act of the opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part. Complainant usually gets 8 liters of milk per day. Due to the act of the opposite parties complainant suffered loss and hence claims compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to receive the milk supplied by the complainant and also pay complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending the following:

The main contention raised by the opposite parties is that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The dispute is one which is covered under 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and hence the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and also there is no consideration in this case. Further the society has the right to decide whether to accept the milk delivered by the complainant. Opposite party is acting as per the rules and bye-laws of the Co-operative Societies Act. Opposite party has sufficient reasons for not accepting the milk delivered by the complainant. Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The evidence led by the complainant consists of the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2. Opposite parties filed chief affidavit. No documentary evidence on the part of opposite parties.

The issues that arise for our consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum ?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

3. If so, what is the relief & costs ?

Issue No.1

It is a settled position of law that a dispute between Co-operative society and its member is maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Apex court has held so in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Society V/s M.Lalitha, 2004 CPJ 1 (SC). Again rather than sale of milk, complainant has availed the service of the opposite party society. It is a dispute between a member and a Co-operative Society. Original Pass Book produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A1. Hence we are of the view that complaint is maintainable before the Forum.

Issue No.2

Before going into the 2^nd issue we would like to discuss about the purpose for which Co-operative Societies exists. Co-operative society is a voluntary association of persons who work together to promote their economic interest. It works on the principle of self help as well as mutual help. The main objective is to provide support to its members. Opposite party’s society is a marketing society which collects the products from the individual members and takes responsibility of selling those products in the market.

Here the opposite party used to collect milk from its members including the complainant. The fact is admitted by the opposite party. Complainant has submitted that as his cow has conceived, he could not deliver milk for 7 months. After that on 19/8/2010 when the complainant delivered milk, opposite party was reluctant to collect it stating that the society has decided not to collect milk from the complainant in their meeting dated 28/6/2010 for the reasons that the complainant is irregular in supplying milk.

On going through the complaint, we find that complainant has a genuine reason for non supply of milk. Opposite party has submitted that they are acting as per their bye-laws and it is not mandatory on the part of the opposite party to collect the milk supplied by the complainant. It is to be noted here that no bye-laws or any other documentary evidence is adduced in evidence by the opposite party in this regard. Further as per Ext.A2, opposite party has decided not to collect milk from the complainant on 28/06/2010. But opposite party has not intimated the same to its members / complainant. According to us, opposite party has a bounden duty to intimate the same. Complainant came to know of this fact only when he went to deliver milk on 19/8/2010. Milk, being a perishable commodity, definitely complainant will find difficult to make an alternative arrangement for marketing. This act of opposite party is a clear case of deficiency in service on their part. We are also of the view that refusal of opposite party in collecting milk is also without any bonafide reason. Opposite party would have kept in mind, the purpose for which it has come into existence.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result, complaint allowed and we order the following.

1. Opposite parties is directed hereinafter to collect milk delivered by the complainant from the date of receipt of order.

    

2. Pay complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

3. If the opposite parties fails to collect the milk as ordered, complainant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.8000/- as compensation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 24^th day of March 2011.

Sd/-

Seena H

President

Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Original Member Pass Book (2 nos) of Vellapadam Ksheerolpadaka

Sahakarana Sangam

Ext,A2 – Letter issued to the complainant by the President. Vellapadam

Ksheera Sangam dated 19/8/10

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1 – Joseph V

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of the Opposite party

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.