BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

28^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

O R D E R

SMT. P.K.SHANTHA, MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant in person under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for providing contaminated milk together with cost of Rs.8,000/- towards legal and miscellaneous expenses on the allegation of deficiency in service. 

2.  The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:

On 12.12.2014 the complainant went to local shop to buy milk of “Thirumala” Company.  The complainant boiled the same and emptied it into a vessel.   Immediately she found some foreign substance which was nothing but a worm with blood around.  The complainant showed the same to her husband to confirm the same. 
She then contacted the OP number which is on backside of the milk packet i.e., Mr.Shashikumar.   The OP said that he will be sending Company’s representative to the complainant’s house.

3.  The OP company representative Mr.Daniel visited the complainant’s house who checked the milk and was shocked after witnessing some insect inside the milk and poured the milk from the container into the plastic bag. Also stated that it will be sent for investigation in lab and the complainant will get back the result within two days.  But the complainant did not receive any response from the OP Company.  Hence, the complainant then filed a complaint on National Consumer Helpline and later had got the incident published in Times of India newspaper for spreading general awareness to mass as this incident could be life threatening.  After this news got published in daily news it was then the OP Company responded and after almost 15 days i.e., on 29.12.2014 Mr.Daniel came to the complainant’s house with the report which was baseless and totally against with the incident which was witnessed.

4. The detailed conversation that complainant had with Mr.Daniel and email correspondences with the OP Company are enclosed as annexures.  The test report on milk from OP Company Laboratory stated that no worm was found in the milk and the worm might be from external source.  The complainant statement itself are contradiction. The complainant alleges that Mr.Daniel, the OP company representative who took the milk for testing might have been discarded and have provided other sample for testing or it seems that since they have got the milk tested in the company’s lab itself and not any government laboratory the report must have been fabricated to keep themselves at safer side. This incident has made to suffer mental harassment to the complainant and made her to lose confidence over any milk company.   Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service against OP. Under the circumstances, she is advised to file this complaint against OP for appropriate relief.

5.  After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to OP.  Inspite of service of notice OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause.  Hence, OP is placed exparte and posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant.  

6. So as to prove his case, Smt.Dhwani Gada, who being the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence in support of his complaint reiterating the complaint averments and produced documents.  Complainant also submitted his written arguments.

7. Perused the averments made in the complaint, affidavit, written arguments, documents filed along with the complaint and other material placed on record.  Heard the oral arguments advanced by the complainant.

8.  In this complaint the OP Company is a milk Company when the complainant found a dead worm with blood floating around the milk which she purchased, immediately called on the number mentioned on backside of the packet and spoke to OP about the incident.  After which within an hour OP Company representative Mr.Daniel came to the complainant’s house to look into the matter and took the whole milk from the container in the plastic bag saying that he will get the milk tested and get back to the  complainant with the result within two days. 

9.  The complainant did not receive any feedback about the report.  After the news got published in Times of India newspaper then the complainant got a reply from Mr.Daniel saying that he would like to meet the complainant witnessed but still gave excuses saying nothing was found in milk.  Later Mr.P.Purushotham, Asst. Manager (QA) OP Company wrote the complainant on email which again saying that worm have entered from external source.

10. The OP did not accept deficiency of service in their part and hence came out with fabricated report which was made in their own lab.  It made crystal clear that its matter of ignorance and company is taking people for granted.  The complainant certainly must have suffered mental agony and the OPs act made the complainant to lose confidence over any milk company.  The OP company cannot take their consumer and other people for granted and get involved in misleading acts by providing customized report or changing the original milk sample with the new one.  The OP did not appear and contest the claim of the complainant.  We do not find any reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.  Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be allowed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

                                  O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part. 

2. OP is hereby directed to compensate the complainant for providing contaminated milk for Rs._____________/- to the complainant along with cost of litigation of Rs.____________/-

3. This order shall be complied within 30 days from today.
4. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26^th day of December 2015)

MEMBER                                   MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

NRS* 

C.C.No.1293/2015

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 11.09.2015

1. Sri.A.K.Ganesan

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP – Absent

List of documents produced by the OP - Nil

MEMBER                           MEMBER                        PRESIDENT