Kerala

Kollam

CC/10/1

K.N.Aravindaksshan Pillai,Arunalayam,Kizhavoor Cherry,Thazhuthala Village,Kollam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aslam,S/o Al;iyaru Kunju,Kalluvila Veedu,Nedumpana PO,Nedumpana Village,Kollam - Opp.Party(s)

R.Vimal Nath

30 Jul 2010

ORDER


Consumer Disputes Redressal ForumCivil Station,Kollam
Complaint Case No. CC/10/1
1. K.N.Aravindaksshan Pillai,Arunalayam,Kizhavoor Cherry,Thazhuthala Village,KollamKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. Aslam,S/o Al;iyaru Kunju,Kalluvila Veedu,Nedumpana PO,Nedumpana Village,KollamKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:

PRESENT :

Dated : 30 Jul 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

O R D E R

 

R.Vijayakumar, Member.

 

 

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

 

(2)

Briefly stated the facts of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a cow from the opposite party for the price of Rs.12, 000 on 18.10.09 dealing through the agents and brokers of opposite party engaged in the filed of cattle sale. The opposite party assured that the cow will yield 8 liters milk. But the cow yielded only 5 liters of milk. As informed the matter by the complainant the opposite party had convinced directly and has given another cow and calf receiving Rs.3500 more as the price of the new cow and assured that it will yield 12 liters of milk. The cow was a sicken one suffering from the ailment of flowing milk continuously from its udder. On 29.10.2009 that matter was informed to the opposite party and the opposite party agreed to give another good item cow on its arrival. For the meantime, the opposite party has given another cow to the complainant temporarily. The second cow and its calf were returned to the opposite party. Opposite party had assured that the third cow will give 10 liters milk. But in fact he has got only 5 liter milk from that cow. The complainant again contacted to the opposite party along with the said two

 

(3)

brokers and that matter also was convinced by opposite party. The opposite party had informed the complainant that he is on enquiry for getting another better item cow and on arrival he will give to the complainant. The expenses incurring by the complainant will be refunded by the opposite party. There after the complainant contacted the opposite party and the brokers on several occasions.

 

        Upon the intimation given by the opposite party, on 08.11.2009 the complainant and one of the brokers Janardhana Pillai along with a milker went to the opposite party’s house. The opposite party showed a new cow and stated that it will cost Rs.30,000 and so the complainant should pay an additional amount of Rs.14,500. But in the view of the complainant and the others followed by him, the cow will cost only Rs.15,000 and it will give only 10 liters of milk. The complainant demanded for repayment of Rs.15,000 after receiving the third cow. But the opposite party was not amenable for the complainant’s demand. On

 

(4)

28.11.2009 the complainant sent an advocate notice to the opposite party. But it was returned with the endorsement “not known”. On

enquiry the complainant came to know that the opposite party’s correct name is Aslam instead of the name Anus as introduced earlier by opposite party himself. On 01.12.2009 the complainant sent another advocate notice, but it was not replied.

 

        It is inevitable to sell the third cow immediately to avoid further losses. That cow will cost only Rs.7,000 and hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting the balance amount Rs.8500, transporting charges Rs.1,000, other expenses Rs.2,500  and for cheating Rs.5000.

 

        Even though sufficient opportunities has been given, the opposite party remained absent. Hence set exparte. The complainant filed affidavit PW1 examined. EX P1 to P4 marked.

 

 

 

(5)

The points that would arise for consideration are :

(1)                            Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.

(2)                            Compensation and cost.

 

Points (1) and (2)

 

        As the opposite party remained absent, we constrained to relay upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. On perusal of the complaint, affidavit and documents we find that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.

 

 In the result, complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.8500 as the balance amount and Rs.3500 as the expenses incurred by the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1000 as cost.

 

        The order is to be  complied with within one month of the date of  receipt of the order.

(6)

Dated this the 30th day of July 2010.

K.Vijayakumaran     :Sd/-

Adv.Ravi Susha               :Sd/-

R.Vijayakumar         :Sd/-

// Forwarded by Order //

 

      Senior Superintendent

 

Date of Filing : 02.01.2010.

Date of Order : 30.07.2010

INDEX

 

List of witness for complainant

PW1                         - Aravindakshan Pillai

List of documents for complainant

P1                            - Advocate notice

 

P2                            - Advocate notice

 

P3                            - Postal Receipt

 

P4                            - Acknowledgement card