By Sri. K Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> The complainant filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The Complainant in brief is given below:<br /> <br /> The complainant and the opposite parties are neighbors and included in the same Ayalkoottam'. The complainant purchased a cow from the opposite party, while it was conceived for a period of 9 months. As assured by the opposite party in lactation in the early calving, the<br /> Contd.....2)<br /> 2<br /> cow had given 10 liters of milk. The purchase of the cow was affected upon the loan availed from the 'Ayalkoottam' by the complainant Rs.10,000/- was given to the opposite parties as the price of the cow and the cow was taken to the house of the complainant on 10.1.06 .The complainant nurtured the cow very well. After the calving the complainant recognized that 2 teats of the cow was blocked and the same was informed to the opposite party. Latter the complainant had given treatment to the cow by a Veterinary Doctor. The Doctor informed on examination that teat blocks would have been in the early calving and it could not be cured on treatment. In lactation the complainant got only 3and ½ liters of milk. The assurance at the time of sale was 10 liters by the opposite party. The sale of the cow is an absolutely an unfair trade practice. The opposite parties on settlement talk further agreed that the price of the cow will be paid back in three installments in presence of mediators. Along with mediators the complainant had taken the cow to the opposite party's residence and left it there. The opposite parties later dis agreed with the assurance of her and on the next day when the complainant was not in her house the opposite party took the cow to the complainant's house and left it there. The complaint which was given gave in 'Ayalkoottam' was not settled though it was discussed. The opposite party's act is unfair trade practice and there may be a direction to the opposite parties to take back the cow and returned Rs.10, 000/- towards the expense of treatment. <br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party filed version on their appearance . The contention of the opposite parties are as follows. The opposite party admitted the sale of the cow. The complainant and the opposite party belonged to the same Ayalkootam', the sale was affected in presence of the mediator. The opposite party sold the cow to the complainant at the price of Rs.10,000/- on the demand of the complainant and the complainant was fully convinced of the lactation of the cow and moreover she was fully acquinted with the cow and lactation of the cow. The cow was sold after the second calving. After the first calving it was known the complainant that the cow was giving 8 liters of<br /> Contd......3)<br /> 3<br /> milk in lactation. There was no assurance from the opposite party that in lactation more than 8 liters of milk will be received. It was also known to the complainant that the cow in lactation gave more than 7 liters milk. After using near about only 1 ½ liters of milk for the house purposes and an average of 7 liters was given in the milk society. All these fact were known to the complainant. The calving of the cow affected one month after purchase. The complainant had not properly managed or attended the cow. As a result the cow was affected of deceases and if any reduction in the quality of milk the opposite party is not liable. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is motivated with some wested interest. The complainant had a loan form the 'Ayalkoottam' and the repayment was not made in time. The opposite party demanded the complainant some amount for the repayment of the loan. The complainant has developed unfriendly attitude to the opposite party and as a result the complaint is filed. The complaint filed is only on experimental basis and it is to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 3. The points in consideration are:<br /> 1) Is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2) Relief and cost.<br /> <br /> Point No.1 and 2: The complainant swear the averments of the complaint in affidavit and is examined as PW1 Ext. A1 to A4 are filed to substantiate allegations of the complainant as avered in the complaint. The case of the complainant is that a cow was purchased from the opposite party after the 1st calving on the assurance of 8 liters of milk gave out after the first calving in lactation. The complainant got only 3 ½ liters of milk, moreover 2 teats of the cow were blocked, there were talks of mediation but it had no affect. The teat block of the cow was not informed to the complainant by the opposite parties. The complainant gave treatment to the cow and the doctor on examination of the cow also informed that the teats block would have been there after the 1st calving. The opposite party purposely undisclosed the fact of teat block to the complainant. It is unfair trade<br /> 4.<br /> practice. The contentions of the opposite party is that the cow was purchased by the complainant on familiarity with the cow and the opposite party. The opposite party is examined as OPW1, Ext. B1 marked to support the contention of the opposite party. According to the opposite party after the 1st calving in lactation more than 7 liters milk was received. In milk society opposite party had given an average of 7 liters of milk in the early lactation, Ext. B1 is the days book of the milk society member of one M.G. Prakashan, who is the son of the opposite party. On perusal of the Ext. B1 in the relevant period of May, June after the 1st calving, the entry of milk in the pass book is around 6 liters. According to the opposite parties they sold milk after taking near about 1 ½ liters for their house purpose.<br /> <br /> 5. The prayer of the complainant is to refund is Rs.10,000/- received by the opposite party after taking back the cow along with cost and compensation. The complainant sware in affidavit that the cow was sold to a 3rd party at the price of Rs.2,500/- to one Hamsa. The complainant has not subsequently made the amendment in the complaint while the proceedings are going on in the Forum. It is to be presumed that the cow is sold by the complainant. By this act of the complainant the complainant itself become infructous. The point No.1 is found against the complainant and in that circumstances a detailed discussion of the point No.2 is not necessitated.<br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order upon cost.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open Forum on this the day of 23rd June, 2008.<br />