ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. Complainant has purchased 5 units of Rabbits from the opp.party’s Rabbit Farm on 1..12.2005 and paid Rs.42,500/- as prize. Opp.party gave assurance to the complainant that the rabbits are fully healthy But from the next day onwards each of the rabbits died and remained only 8 rabbits. The assurance given by opp.party was in correct almost all the rabbits were died except 8. Thus the opp.party committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service towards the complaint. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting relief. Opp.party filed version contenting that the opp.party has not given any assurance to the complainant. Opp.party was only a part time worker in the Rabbit Farmed andhe left his work in the Farm prior to the alleged incident. The opp.party did not receive any amount from the complainant and has not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service to the complainant. Opp.party contented that the complainant is not come within the purview of the consumer because he has purchased the Rabbits for commercial purpose. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 and 2 were examined. Ext. P1 to P47were marked. No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.party. Points 1 and 2 Here the point to be decided is whether the opp.party has committed deficiency in service. According to the complainant, pp.party has given assurance to the complainant that the rabbits kept in his Farm are fully healthy. But from the next day onwards each of them died. Opp.party’s version that he was only a part time worker in the rabbit Farm and he has no connection with the sale as alleged by the complainant. For proving the purchase, the complainant produced Ext.P1 purchase agreement dated 17.11.2005. Opp.party’s contention is that he is unaware of Ext.P1. On verifying Ext.P1 it is revealed that the signatures shown in Ext.P1 are for the customer’s signature and signature of salesman. There is no evidence to show that opp.party is the proprietor of B.S. Modern Rabbit Farm and he has done the sale as alleged by the complainant. More over complaint is failed to prove that from the next day onwards each of the rabbit died. PW.2 visited the Farm of the complainant and treated the rabbits on 3.3.06 ie after 3 months from the purchased date. PW.2 deposed that if the rabbit Farm is not kept clean the rabbit will affect the skin disease namely Sarscoptic Mange. From the evidence of PW.2 we cannot come to the conclusion that the rabbits were having the said skin disease at the time of sale. At the time of purchase the condition of rabbit might have been fully satisfied by the complainant. As the complainant failed to prove the role of opp.party in the purchase, the complainant is not entitled to get relief from the opp.party. In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed without cost. Dated this the 29th June 2009. : I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Viswanathan Nair List of documents for the complainant P1. Purchase agreement dt. 17.11.2005. P2. – Publicity notice P3. – Mslsyslsmsnotsm fsyrf 3.3.06 pshr 12 P4. – Certificate issued by Senior Veterinary Doctor P5. - Advocate notice P6. – Postal receipt P7. – Acknowledgement card,. | 
