IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 97/2012 (Filed on 08.05.2012)
Between:
Reji Joseph,
Palackamannil Veedu,
Thattabhagom P.O.,
Kaviyoor, Thiruvalla – 689 541. … Complainant.
And:
Biju,
Valliyil Veedu,
Vallamkulam P.O.,
Eraviperoor – 689 541. … Opposite party.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is a farmer rearing live stock and the opposite party is a dealer of live stock. On 07.04.2012, opposite party purchased 2 cows of the complainant at an agreed price of ` 46,500 and given a cow to the complainant for ` 33,500 assuring that the cow given to the complainant will get 10.5 litres of milk per milking. But on milking, the complainant got only 4 litres of milk per day in spite of the assurance of the opposite party. This matter was intimated to the opposite party who agreed to give another cow and directed the complainant to accompany him to Othera for seeing a new cow. Accordingly, the complainant and his wife along with the opposite party went to a house at Othera for seeing the new cow and they saw the cow. Then the opposite party told the complainant that the price of the said cow is ` 46,500. But that offer is not amenable to the complainant as the price of the cow is very high and the complainant did not purchased the cow. Thereafter, the complainant directly approached the owner of that cow and asked him to say his expected price of that cow. Accordingly, he said that he is prepared to sell the cow for ` 29,000 to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant asked the opposite party to return the price of the cow purchased by the complainant from the opposite party on several occasions directly and lastly through Thiruvalla police. But the opposite party has not turned up or he had not settled the dispute so far. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party to take away the cow by paying ` 33,500 with ` 2,000 as cost of this proceedings.
3. In this case, the opposite party is exparte.
4. On the basis of the averments in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PWs. 1 and 2 and Exts. A1 and A2. After closure of evidence, the complainant was heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party sold a cow to the complainant for ` 33,500 assuring that the said cow will give 10.5 litres of milk per milking. But on milking, it is found that the said cow gives only 4 litres of milk per day. This matter was intimated to the opposite party and he assured that the matter will be settled. But the matter was not settled by the opposite party in spite of his assurance. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to the complainant and hence the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant and one witness for the complainant adduced oral evidence as PWs. 1 and 2. 2 documents were also produced by the complainant which are marked as Exts. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the certificate dated 04.05.2012 issued by State Bank of Travancore, Kaviyoor branch showing that the complainant had availed term loan for purchasing a cow. Ext. A2 is the certificate dated nil issued by the Veterinary Surgeon, Kaviyoor showing that the complainant is a farmer rearing live stock.
8. On the basis of the available evidence, it is seen that the complainant is a dairy farmer and he had purchased a cow from the opposite party on the assurance that the said cow will give 10.5 litres of milk per milking. But on milking it is found that the said cow is giving only 4 litres of milk per day in spite of the assurance of the opposite party. The matter was intimated to the opposite party who assured to settle the dispute. But the opposite party did not settled the dispute so far which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. We find no reason to disbelieve the oral evidence given by PWs. 1 and 2, in the light of the absence of the opposite party in the proceedings who had been declared as exparte. Therefore, the complainant’s case stand proved as unchallenged and hence this complaint is allowable.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of ` 33,500 (Rupees Thirty three thousand five hundred only) along with cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount from the opposite party with 9% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount. The complainant is also directed to return the cow to the opposite party on getting the amount ordered herein above.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 12th day of July, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Regi.
PW2 : Raveendran Nair.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Certificate dated 04.05.2012 issued by State Bank of
Travancore, Kaviyoor branch.
A2 : Certificate dated nil issued by the Veterinary Surgeon,
Kaviyoor.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Reji Joseph, Palackamannil Veedu, Thattabhagom P.O.,
Kaviyoor, Thiruvalla – 689 541.
(2) Biju, Valliyil Veedu, Vallamkulam P.O.,
Eraviperoor – 689 541.
(3) The Stock File.
