IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 258/2021 (filed on 29-10-2021)
Petitioner : Sali Varghese,
W/o. Varghese,
Ithitharayil House,
Erathuvadakara P.O.
Manimala, Vellavoor village,
Changanacherry Taluk,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Anish Kumar K.)
Vs.
Opposite Party : A Mahendran,
4/18 Chettiyor Street,
Kurmbalayam P.O.
Pollachi Taluk,
Tamil Nadu – 642002.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complainant influenced by the advertisement given by the opposite party in you tube contacted him and reached his farm at Pollachi on 19.9.21. The complainant demanded two cows of breed Jersey and of daily milk quantity of 20 litres., but the opposite party informed her that two cows were not available and one cow of jersey breed which was 8 months pregnant only was available then. He assured that the said cow had a milking capacity of 20 liter daily. Not only that he showed another cow with a calf which was assured to be of Jersey breed and had a daily milking of 20 liters. The opposite party hesitated to demonstrate the milking for the reason that it was not the milking time. Believing the words of the opposite party the complainant bought the pregnant cow for Rs.65000/- and the cow and the calf for Rs.75000/- on the same day by paying cash. The opposite party offered to transport the cows to the complainant’s house at his own responsibility and he received Rs.8,000/- for that also. Thereafter when the complainant milked the cow, there was only 10 liters per day which was contrary to the assurance given by the opposite party. Moreover, the pregnant cow was sick on the same day of purchase. The complainant consulted with a veterinary doctor and on his examination it was understood that the said cow was of Jersy
cross breed and the cow and cattle were of H-F cross breed. The pregnant cow had to undergo treatment from 19.9.21 to 8.10.21 as it was seriously sick. The complainant had to spend Rs.1,000/- daily towards the doctor fee, Rs.5,000/- for cow lifting machine for raising the cow,Rs.15,000/- for medicines. Despite the treatment given, the cow and its calf died on 8.10.21 and the complainant had to spend Rs.6500/- towards the cremation expenses. When the complainant informed the opposite party about the decease of the cow, the opposite party asked the complainant to return the cow but it was not possible as it was sick.
After the death when the complainant informed the death of the pregnant cow and the related expenses, the opposite party agreed to pay all the incurred expenses and to exchange the other cow and calf with a new one. But till now, he has not performed as promised.
Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party demanding Rs.1,62,500/- including the expenses incurred for the dead cow , Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant due to the less quantity of daily milking. She further demanded to replace the cow and calf with a new one. But though the opposite party received the notice, he did not respond.
Thereafter the other cow also started showing symptoms of the same decease and had to undergo treatment. It gives only 5 liter milk per day. The opposite party has done unfair trade practice by advertising falsely regarding the quality of the cows in his farm and has committed deficiency in service. The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant with 1,62500/- including all the expenses incurred and compensation, Rs.75,000/- on failure of replacement of new cow and cost and compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/- each. The opposite party did not appear before the commission even after the
receipt of notice or filed version. Hence the opposite party is set exparte.
The complainant has adduced evidence vide proof affidavit and documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A10.
After perusing the pleadings and the evidence on record, we would frame the following issues.
- Whether the complainant has established an unfair trade practice through
misleading advertisement and deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party?
2. If so what are the reliefs?
Point no. 1
The complainant has alleged that the opposite party had mislead her by advertising about the high quality of the cows in his farm and after the sale he was not ready for compensating the loss incurred to her due to this .
The first point to be answered is whether the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice by misleading advertisement. Though the complainant alleges so, she has not produced any evidence to prove that the opposite party has advertised about his farm misleadingly. But Exhibits A1 to A3 prove the transaction made between the complainant and the opposite party. The cow which was pregnant became sick on the same day and died on 5.10.21 within one month from the day of purchase. Exhibits A7 to A9 prove that the cow was under treatment.A7 and A9 are the treatment history and A8 is the death certificate issued by Dr. Sanoop Salim, veterinary surgeon, Sahrudaya Veterinary hospital, Pathanad. The opposite party though received Exhibit A5 notice, did not respond.
According to the complainant the opposite party assured her of 20 liters daily milking from the cows but the complainant could get only 10 liters from the surviving one which decreased to 5L and the other one has died. The complainant has produced the treatment certificate and the death certificate of one cow. Thus it is clear that the cows which were supplied by the opposite party were not up to
the quality offered by the opposite party. Though the complainant alleges that the other cow also is sick, she has not produced any evidence. Again though there is an allegation of less quantity of per day milk, no evidence has been adduced to prove this also.
Section 2 (47) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 says that
(i) making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which-
(a) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;
As the complaint is not challenged and no contrary evidence has been adduced by the opposite party, we find the point no.1 against the opposite party as to he has committed unfair trade practice. The complainant has listed the expenses incurred to her due to the treatment of the cow but has not produced any evidence to substantiate this. Exhibit A1,A2 and A3 prove the transactions of Rs.75,000/-,Rs.65,000/- and Rs.8,000/-respectively. Other expenses for the treatment of the dead cow and the surviving cow are not supported by any documents.
From the complaint and proof affidavit, we infer that the complainant had to suffer a lot both mentally and physically because of the false assurance of the opposite party.
Hence we allow the complaint partly.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.65,000/-towards the price of the cows to the complainant along with Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant.
The order shall be complied within 30 days failing which the amounts shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of July, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Receipt dtd.19-09-21 for Rs.75,000/- towards the price of cow
A2 - Receipt dtd.19-09-21 for Rs.65,000/- towards the price of cow
A3 – Receipt dtd.19-09-21 for Rs.8,000/- towards transportation charge
A4 series- Receipt dtd.19-09-21 (2 nos)
A5 – Lawyers notice dtd.11-10-21 to the opposite party
A6 – Postal receipt
A7- Treatment details given by Dr. Sanoop Salim (Veterinary surgeon)
A8 – Death certificate dtd.27-10-21 by Dr. Sanoop Salim (Veterinary surgeon)
A9 – Treatment certificate dtd.27-10-21 by Dr. Sanoop Salim (Veterinary surgeon)
A10 – Postal acknowledgement card
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
