6.8.08<br /> Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member<br /> This complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.14, 800/- with cost.<br /> The case of the complainant is that the complainant and the opposite party were known to each other. On 3.12.06 he had purchased a cow from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.13,400/-. The opposite party made believe the complainant that only 5 days were passed after the delivery of the cow and will obtain 15 liters of milk every day. The complainant purchased the cow believing the words of the opposite party. But on the very next day itself he had got only 7 liters of milk from the cow. The complainant waited for few days under the belief that more milk will be obtained if started to give more cattle feeds. But even after this he is getting only 7 liters of milk from the cow. So he approached the opposite party on 14.12.06 and told him about this and asked to refund the money by taking back the cow. But instead of doing so he abused the complainant. So the opposite party cheated the complainant as part of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. So he had issued a lawyer notice. But the opposite party replied showing unnecessary averments without refund the money. Hence this complaint. <br /> On receiving the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. He appeared on receiving the notice and later on he was absent and set exparte.<br /> The points to be considered are<br /> 1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 3. Relief and cost.<br /> The evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A3.<br /> Issue Nos. 1 to 3<br /> The complainant’s affidavit along with exhibit A1 shows that the complainant had purchased a cow from the opposite party. But he has not produced any documents to prove beyond doubt that he had paid Rs.13, 400/- as the consideration for the cow. But it can be inferred that one will not come before a court of law by spending the money in his pocket without any basis. More over if the opposite party is not involved in this transaction he would have come forward and defend his case. So there are some merits in the case. So we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable for the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as the cost. These issues are answered in favour of the complainant.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the consumer protection Act.<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainnt<br /> A1.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP<br /> A2.&A3.Postal receipt and acknowledgement card<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party<br /> Nil<br /> Witness examined for either side:<br /> Nil<br /> <br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur<br /> <br />