DATE OF FILING: 28.04.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No. 104/2011
Between
Complainant : Sasidharan S/o Raman,
Vallippadavil House,
Cheppukulam P.O,
Edamaruku, Uumbannoor Village,
Idukki District.
And
Opposite Parties : 1. Tom.C.Antony,
Idukki District Quality Control Officer,
Dairy Development,
Idukki, Thodupuzha P.O,
Idukki District.
2. Mini Sabu,
Secretary,
Cheppukulam Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam,
Muttathil Puthenpurayil House,
Cheppukulam P.O, Karimannoor,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: N.K.Vinodkumar)
3. Latha V.K, Testor,
Vallippadavil House,
Cheppukulam P.O, Karimannoor,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: N.K.Vinodkumar)
O R D E R
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
The complainant is a member of Cheppukulam Milk Society, he had supplied milk in the society. The complainant had alleged deficiency of service against the Idukki District Dairy Development Quality Control Officer. Every day the society measures the fat content of the milk and after the test they shows the reading of fat. The complainant have a doubt about the reading, so he himself sent the milk to the nearest milk society, that is, Thattakkuzha Milk Society and found out that the reading of fat content is different. There his milk showed fat reading as .8. After that the complainant had examined the milk in Idukki District Dairy Development Quality Control Office, there also he got the same reading which he had found in the Thattakkuzha Milk society. The complainant in this petition stated that he had explained this matter to the Quality Control Officer and he agreed to visit the society and make arrangement for perfect testing. But the promise of the officer was failed. No arrangement was made for perfect testing. Complainant alleged that the society have electronic machine for milk testing, that testing is not correct. So it affected the price of milk. The machine is showing wrong reading due to the mistake of its Technician and lack of servicing. Only on 19.03.2011 the officer inspected the society and found out that the reading of fat point is 4.8. Then the officer took milk samples for further testing but the milk sample collected was not of the complainant and the reading in further test showed only 3.2 fat point. Complainant point out that this is a wrongful action of the officer and the responsible officer had colluded with the society staff and showed fat reading point of complainant's milk sample only as 3.2. In the first test the reading was 4.8. The complainant put forwarded serious allegation that, if the reading of fat content of milk is not correct it will affect the price of milk, so he sustained heavy loss. Hence this petition is filed before the Forum.
2.The Ist opposite party, District Quality Control Officer filed written version. In the written version the Ist opposite party admitted that Cheppukulam Milk society is a registered society and the Ist opposite party is not the Apex body to control daily activities of a registered society. The Ist opposite party is an independent officer under Dairy Development Department acting according to the instructions of Director of the Department. The daily testing had conducted in the society itself. If any complaint regarding the testing, the petitioner can give complaint in the society itself, but in this case no such complaint is found. If any complaint arise in front of the Department, the Ist opposite party makes arrangements for testing the milk samples. In this case the Ist opposite party had tested the milk sample of the complainant and other customers of the society. The society can use electronic machine. The purchase and use of it is not under the control of the Ist opposite party. It is deciding by MILMA. The servicing of it is also conducting by MILMA. On examination of the Ist opposite party in the society, it is found that the reading of the society is correct and the complainant had obtained eligible price for his milk. When the Ist opposite party tested the sample milk, the fat reading was 3.2, that was shown to the complainant also. For testing the samples, the society had given number to each and every samples. The testing was conducted as per the number, this number is recording in the register also. The name of customer is not mentioned in it. No foul play is happened. The Ist opposite party did everything as per the direction of his superior officer. No deficiency of service happened.
3. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties also filed written versions. The 2nd opposite party is the Secretary of Cheppukulam Milk Society and 3rd opposite party is the Milk Tester of the society. They admitted that the complainant is a member of the society, he had not given any complaint regarding the faulty reading. The society have 52 members, they all supplies milk in the society. No complaint is arised regarding the functions of the society.
They have electronic machine which was bought with the permission of MILMA, and the machine is also made servicing under the supervision of MILMA. Timely inspection of the
Ist opposite party is also carried out in the society. If any mistake in the reading it should be noted by the Ist opposite party. For testing the samples, the society collects every sample with a number. As per the number it was under testing, not in the name of the customers. The number is also denoted in the register also. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties stated that the complainant have personal enmity with the Milk Tester due to family matters, for which he put unnecessary allegation against her. Complainant is also a candidate in the election of society. But he could get only 13 votes and failed in the election. After that he put unnecessary allegation against the society. The complainant has not sustained any loss in the price of milk. No amount is pending in the name of the complainant. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties stated that they did everything as per the rules of the society. No deficiency of service had happened in this case.
4. 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 ?
5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3(series) marked on the side of the opposite parties.
6.The POINT :- Complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 was cross examined by opposite parties 1, 2 and 3. 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1. Ist opposite party was examined as DW2. On examination of DW2 MO-1 marked. MO-1 is the bottle in which milk samples are collected. Ext.P1 is the price chart of society which mentioned the price. Ext.P2 is the certificate given by the Quality Control Officer to the complainant. Ext.P3 is complainant's pass books which are three in numbers. Ext.R1 is the copy of milk collecting register of the 2nd opposite party in which included the name of the complainant. Ext.R2 is the copy of the price register, which shows the price of milk. Ext.R3 is a document which shows the servicing of electronic milk testing machine.
The case of the complainant is about the defect of milk testing. The dispute is regarding the fat content of milk. Exhibits P2, P3 and R1 shows that he is a regular customer of the society from 2009 itself. Ext.P3 pass book shows that he had received the price of milk. Exts.R1 and R2 are also show the same thing. Here the complainant had alleged deficiency of service upon the Ist opposite party, but he has no direct connection to the Ist opposite party. The Ist opposite party is working under the Control of Director of Dairy Development Department. The Ist opposite party has a duty to inspect the primary milk societies, he did it according to the instruction of his superior officer. On 19.03.2011 the Ist opposite party inspected the society as per the request of the complainant. As per the petition of the complainant, the Ist opposite party inspected the Cheppukulam Milk society and the result of test of fat content was given to the complainant. The Ist opposite party collected samples for further testing in District Office, that test result was also informed to the complainant. The Ist opposite party also admitted that the fat content of milk can be varied upto .2 in normal case, which depend upon the temperature and weather conditions. Here the complainant failed to produce concrete evidence to prove his allegations. In the petition he alleged deficiency of service against the Ist opposite party, but the complainant has no direct relation with the Ist opposite party. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the Secretary of Cheppukulam Milk Society and the Milk Tester of the society. The complainant never gave any complaint in the society regarding the disputes. So we think that the allegations of the complainant have no proof. The allegations are only baseless.
In the result, the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of October, 2011
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - Sasidharan
On the side of Opposite Party :
DW1 - Mini Sabu
DW2 - Tom.C.Antony
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Price Chart of the society w.e.f 1.08.2010
Ext.P2 - Certificate dated 16.03.2011 issued by the Quality
Control Officer, Dairy Development, Idukki regarding
the test result of milk sample of the complainant
Ext.P3(series) - Complainant's pass books(3 Nos)
MO-1 - Sample bottle
On the side of Opposite Party :
Ext.R1(series) - Photocopy of Milk Collecting Register for the period 16/03/11 to 22/03/11
Ext.R2 - Photocopy of Price Register
Ext.R3(series) - Service Report dated 17.04.2011 and 28.02.2011 for servicing of electronic milk testing machine
