BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.187/2008 Between Complainant : Mathai Thomman S/o Thomman, Panthenal House, Narakakkanam P.O, Idukki District. (By Adv: K.J.Thomas) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary, APCOS, Narakakkanam P.O, Idukki District. 2. The President, APCOS, Narakakkanam P.O, Idukki District. (Both by Adv: Biju Vasudevan) O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complaint is filed against the opposite party, milk society for deficiency in service and also for getting a direction to receive the milk supplied by the complainant.
The complainant is an agriculturist engaged in growing of cattle. The complainant is also a member of the opposite party society, for the last 20 years and supplying milk to the Society. On 28.07.2008, the complainant purchased a milch cow from one Thomas Varkey of Narakakkanam by paying an amount of Rs.15,000/-.The said cow was yielding 5 litres of milk in the morning and 3 litres in the evening. On 1.08.2008 onwards the complainant approached the opposite party with the milk from this milch cow. But the opposite party refused to receive the milk from the complainant. They told the complainant that the milk of this cow was received from the said Thomas Varkey and they are not able to change the name of Thomas Varkey as the name of the complainant. So the complainant was supplying milk through the said Thomas Varkey from 1.08.2008 and it was duly mentioned in the book given to the said Thomas Varkey by the opposite party. The matter was questioned by the complainant and notice was also given to the opposite party for getting the explanation for the same. But no reply was filed by the opposite party. The complainant is also having a provision shop opposite to the Milk Society and is engaged in the sale of cattle feed in the shop which may cause some enmity with the Society because the society is also selling the same. In order to deny the benefits of the society to the complainant, the opposite party deliberately avoided the milk of the complainant in his name. So the petition is filed for directing the opposite party to receive the milk in the name of the complainant.
2. The 2nd opposite party filed a written version and also on behalf of the Ist opposite party and admitted that the complainant is a member of the Society for the last 20 years and so he is not a consumer of the opposite party. The complainant was supplying milk during 1993-1994 to 2006 in the Society for 9 years. After that he was started a provision store and sold out the cow, so milk was not supplied by him. As per the benefit given under Milk Producers' Provident Fund to the agriculturists maintained by the Government to a member, a person is supplying milk in the society regularly for 10 years and attains 60 years of age, he is entitled to get pension. The complainant supplied the milk for 9 years. So he is not entitled to get the benefit of pension because he did not complete 10 years of his business. In order to complete the 10 years in supplying milk to the society and for getting the benefit as per the scheme of the Government, this complaint is filed and not for any other reason. The complainant is not having any milch cow and so he is supplying milk of the cow owned by another person, so the society denied to receive the same. So there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite parties.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite parties. 5. The POINT :- Complainant is a member of the Milk Society since 20 years, in which the Ist opposite party is the Secretary and the 2nd opposite party is the President. The opposite party society is receiving the milk from the complainant for several years. But now the opposite parties are refused to receive the milk in the name of the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that if any agriculturist, selling milk to the society continuously for 10 years, they are eligible for getting the bonus and pension. The complainant bought a milch cow for Rs.15,000/- from his relative named Thomas. PW1 approached the society in which Ist opposite party is the Secretary with the milk of that cow on 1.08.2008 onwards. But Ist opposite party refused to measure and receive the milk, because the said Thomas was selling milk to the society previously, now they are not ready to receive the same by changing the name. The reason was not revealed to the complainant. So the complainant is constrained to return the cow to the said Thomas. Ext.P1 is the receipt issued by the said Thomas for Rs.15,000/- for the price of the cow. Ext.P2 is the copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the Ist opposite party asking the reason for the non-acceptance of the milk from the complainant. Ist opposite party is getting commission in the sale of cattle feed in Society. The complainant is having a shop in front of the society in which he is selling cattle feed also, so the Ist opposite party is in enmity with the complainant. The Ist opposite party was examined as DW1. Thomas Varkey was delivering milk to the complainant's shop and the complainant was selling that milk to the society. That was witnessed by DW1. It is against the bye-law of the society. The bye-law of the society is marked as Ext.R1. Copy of the register in which the said Thomas Varkey is supplying milk to the society is marked as Ext.R2. The complainant is a cattle farmer, he was supplying milk to the society for 9 years. DW1 told to the complainant that if the complainant supplies milk to the society for 1 more year or 500 litres of milk, then only he would be entitled to get the pension. For getting that benefit, complainant supplied the milk of the said Thomas Varkey's cow to the society, in the name of the complainant. The complainant told to the Ist opposite party that he could not grow the cow, because his wife is under treatment. The opposite party challenged the genuineness of Ext.P1 because there is no witness signed in that document and is created by the complainant. One person alleges forgery must prove the same. The opposite party never cited the said Thomas Varkey as a witness to show that the cow is belongs to him and Ext.P1 is a forged one. It is admitted by the Ist opposite party that he never investigated, the matter whether the complainant is having a cow in his house premises and whether he is supplying the milk of the said cow. Only because DW1 witnessed that the said Thomas Varkey was delivering milk in the shop of the complainant, DW1 assumed that the cow is, now also in the ownership of the said Thomas Varkey. It is also admitted by opposite party that the said Thomas Varkey is not only a near relative of the complainant but also a neighbour. He is the brother's son of the complainant. It cannot be avoided that the brother's son carried the milk from the residence to the shop of the complainant. If the complainant continuing his supply of milk for one more year he will be entitled to get the pension. Only because of that, it was rejected by the Ist opposite party. Rejecting the same is a gross unfair trade practice and deficiency. So we think it is fit to order the opposite parties to receive the milk supplying by the 70 years old complainant for further one year if he supplies milk of his cow.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to receive the milk supplying by the complainant to the opposite party's Society, for further one year. The complainant should grow a cow by himself for that purpose. The opposite party is also directed to give Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2009 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Mathai Thomman On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - Cicily Sebastian Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Receipt dated 28.07.2008 for Rs.15,000/- issued by Thomas Varkey, Panthenal Ext.P2 - Complainant's letter dated 17.08.2008 addressed to the Ist opposite party On the side of Opposite Parties : Ext.R1 - Bye-law of the Society Ext.R2 - Photocopy of the milk recording register in which the name of Thomas Varkey, Panthenal included(2 Pages) Ext.R3 - Photocopy of the milk recording register in which the name of Thomas Varkey, Panthenal included(5 Pages)
| 
