By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.22,500/- with 18% interest from 22.10.2011 and Rs.3,650/- as maintenance expense and to take back the cow or else to pay Rs.8,000/- with 18% interest from 22.10.2011 to the complainant and for a cost of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant bought a cow from the opposite party No.1 on 22.10.2011 for a total sum of Rs.22,500/-. She approached the opposite party No.1 along with cow broker Mr. Ulahannan. The opposite party No.1 offered 12 liters ofmilk per day and believing the words of opposite party No.1, the complainant bought the cow at a rate of 2,000/- Rupees per liter and fixed the sale value as Rs.22,500/-. The complainant paid the entire amount then and there and took the cow to her home. On delivery of cow, the complainant got only 8 liters of milk instead of 12 liters per day from the cow. According to the complainant, the opposite party No.1 had cheated her by offering 12 liters of milk per day and collected more amount. Then she approached the opposite party No.1 and asked him to give back the amount and take back the cow, opposite party No.1 refused to do so and misbehaved. Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the Forum for her redressal.
3. On receipt of complaint, Notice was send to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is subsequently impleaded, since she is the pre owner of the cow. Both parties appeared in before the Forum and filed version denying all the contentions of the complainant. The complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and opposite party No.1 is examined as OPW1.
4. On perusing the complaint, affidavit and version of opposite parties, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- To prove the case of the complainant, in addition to the complaint, the complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1. The complainant stated in the complaint and affidavit that, she bought the cow by going along with one Ulahannan, Puthedath house, Madakimala, who being a cow broker. But the complainant did not take any steps to examine the witness Ulahannan or any one else to prove her case. Moreover, there is no document to prove the dealing of complainant with the opposite parties. Even if several chances were given to the complainant to produce witness, the complainant did not make use of it. The opposite parties denied the contentions of the complainant and stated that they have no cow dealing with the complainant. When the opposite parties denied the transaction, the burden is upon the complainant to prove her case. But here the complainant miserably failed to prove her case beyond doubt. A transaction can be proved either through documents or through witnesses. But here the complainant failed to do so. Moreover, the complainant admitted in cross examination that she did not verify the passbook of the opposite party before buying the cow. A prudent purchaser must be more cautious before buying or investing money in to something. Here the complainant did not take such enquiries before her purchase, even if she is an experienced “Ksheera Karshaka”. She did not file any police complaint or send any Notice to the opposite parties before approaching the Forum. So the transaction by the complainant with opposite parties is doubtful. According to the complainant, she got 8 liters of milk instead of 12 liters per day. No documents are produced by the complainant to prove those aspects. So the
shadow of doubt is not cleared in this case. So the Forum reached to a conclusion that the complainant failed to prove the case beyond doubt and she is not entitled to get any remedies as prayed for, deficiency of service of opposite parties is not proved. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the complainant, she is not entitled to get any cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of January 2014.
Date of Filing:06.02.2012.
