IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 29^th day of July, 2024

Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President

  Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

Sri. K.M.Anto, Member

C C No. 154/2023 (Filed on 22.05.2023)

O R D E R

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The complainant is a dairy farmer. In January 2023 some of his cattle which was fed with cattle feed manufactured by the opposite party 1 to 3 and sold by the 5^th opposite party died of food infection and quantity of milk in some cows decreased due to the disease. The dairy farmers in Kottayam District who had suffered the same complained about this to the MLA of the locality and a meeting was arranged by the opposite party with the diary farmers and informed that they would take steps to redress the grievances caused to the dairy farmers who had to suffer losses due to the use of the cattle feed. The 1^st complainant also gave a complaint and he was called for a settlement talk in which the loss incurred for the first complainant was assessed as ₹ 1,39,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty nine thousand only) and the dairy farm development officer had assured that all other expenses like doctor fees, the loss due to decrease in milk, vehicle expense, conveyance of doctor, medical bills etc. The first complainant submitted documents for the expenses to the development officer which was ₹ 40,306/- (Rupees forty thousand three hundred and six only)  in total. After some days the development officer informed the first complainant that the opposite parties would give only  ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) if it is not amenable he could go for  litigation.

Thus the complainant filed this complaint for compensation with the losses incurred to him.

The opposite parties appeared and opposite party  1 to 3 and opposite party 5 filed joint version. 4^th opposite party did not care to file version. Hence 4^th opposite party was set exparte. The opposite parties contented that the complaint is not maintainable. The allegation that the cattle which was fed with the cattle feed from 2023 January were died of food infection and some of them were having lesser quantity of milk is false. The opposite parties manufacture different cattle feeds like KS Supreme and KS Deluxe Plus. It is admitted that the cattle which was fed supreme cattle feed manufactured on 24.01.2023 and 27.01.2023 had some defect which caused infection to the cattle and the opposite party had withdrawn those cattle feeds from the market. The opposite parties had fairly compensated those farmers who had genuine loss due to the defect of the said cattle feed. But it’s not correct that the cattle feed produced from January 2023 was having problem but that produced only on 24.01.2023 and 27.01.2023 only had the said problem. The complainant had not purchased K.S Supreme cattle feed and the cattle got sick due to the eating of cocoa leaves as told by the first complainant himself to the treating doctor, as per the treatment records availed from the treating doctor. The complainant fed the cattle with the cattle feed purchased in January. The opposite parties had taken all the steps to redress the grievances caused to each customers due to the defective cattle feed and all the consumers are satisfied in the settlement. The reason for the decease of the cow of first complainant was not the cattle feed but the over eating of coco leaves as stated by the 1^st complainant to the treating doctor. The doctor prescribed medicines for that purpose. The treatment was started on 08.01.2023. It is not correct that the first complainant had incurred ₹ 1,39,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirty nine thousand only) towards doctor fees, decrease in milk, conveyance expenses of the doctor, medical bills and that the opposite parties agree to refund the amount in the discussion with diary development department on submission of relevant documents. The complainant has not incurred ₹ 40,360/-(Rupees forty thousand three hundred and sixty only) towards the treatment expenses. A company representative was there in the discussion with the dairy development officer for not causing any difficulties to the dairy farmers, the opposite parties informed that they were ready to compensate them. If the complainant’s cow was fed with the cattle feed produced on 24.01.2023 and 27.01.2023 he also would have been compensated. But the complainant failed to produce any document to prove this. The opposite parties had never considered to pay the said so called expenses of the complainant. It is not correct that Dr.G.Padma Kumar treated the cow from 29.01.2023  to 03.02.2023 as per his certificate. The bill produced towards the autorickshaw charges and the dates on which the said doctor treated the cow are different. The wife of the first complainant had received the insurance amount for the deceased cow. The opposite party has no liability in the decrease in the quantity of the milk of the cow of the complainant from 01.01.2023. As the complainant did not own the cow and the milk was sold not by the complainant, the complaint is not maintainable. The second complainant is a person who encourages Pellet free cattle farming and propagates this idea through youtube and he is the admin of a group in which the pellet free farming is engaged. The first complainant has filed this complaint only upon instigation of the second complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

The complainant adduced evidence vide affidavit in lieu of chief examination and by putting himself into the box as PW1 and through Exhibits A1 to A11 as documentary evidence. Opposite parties’ evidence comprises of the deposition of DW1, the treating doctor and Exhibit B1.

On a detailed perusal of the pleadings and evidence on record we would frame the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties ?
2. If so what are the reliefs to be granted?

Point Nos. 1& 2

The case of the complainant is that due to the defective cattle feed, produced by the opposite parties given to his cows, one of the cows was got infected and consequently he had a loss of money due to the decrease in quantity of milk. Though the complainant complained to the opposite parties and they admitted to compensate him the opposite parties deviated from the settlement terms. Hence the complaint is filed for compensation. The opposite parties  contended that the cattle feed produced on 24.01.2023 and 27.01.2023 only had some problems and the dairy farmers who fed their cattle with the cattle feed produced on the said dates were compensated properly and nobody has any complaint regarding this but the complainant who alleges to have fed the cattle feed of the said dates to his cow has not produced any evidence and moreover in Exhibit B1, the doctor  recorded that the sickness happened to the complainant’s cow was because of overfeeding of Coco leaves. So the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.

The complainant produced documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A11. The main allegation of the complainant is that the cattle feed produced by the opposite parties and marketed by the opposite parties when fed to the cows of the complainant, the cows started showing symptoms of bowel irritations and which led the cows to be laid up which incurred treatment expenses to the complainant along with the loss due to the decrease in milk. The complainant has not produced any bill or any document to show that on these dates he had purchased the cattle feed of the opposite parties. The alleged disease happened on 08.01.2023. The opposite parties have admitted that the cattle feed produced on 24.01.2023 and 27.01.2023 had some problems and they were ready to compensate all the dairy farmers who had to suffer loss due to the sick cattle. In the documents produced by the complainant that Exhibits A2,  A3, A7 and  A8, the opposite parties have expressly admitted their fault. The cows of the complainant were infected on 08.01.2023 which is an earlier date.

The opposite parties vehemently argued that the cattle feed produced before all other dates were of no defects and so the complainants were not entitled to any compensation. The complainant has failed to produce the bill or any other document of the purchase of the product or to get an expert report regarding the quality of the cattle feed he had fed to his cows. So there is no evidence before us to prove that the cattle feed purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties were defective and the same caused sickness to his cows leading to the loss suffered by him. Moreover DWI, who is the treating Doctor of the cow has noted in the OP record that the owner of the cow revealed that the cow was fed with excess cocoa seeds. The doctor, DW1, deposed that the cause of the disease happened to the cows of the complainant was this excessive feeding of cocoa seeds. Nowhere in the treatment records or in the OP  ticket, the Doctor has recorded that the  defective cattle feed was the reason for the disease of the cow. So we find that the complainants have failed to prove their case of suffering loss due to the disease of their cows because of the defective cattle feed. So we find the complaint has no merits  and hence liable to be dismissed. Thus the complaint is dismissed.

      Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of July, 2024

    Smt. Bindhu R.  Member Sd/- 

    Sri. Manulal V.S, President  Sd/-    

   Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-   

APPENDIX :

Witness from the side of the Opposite Parties :

DW1         Dr.Raji James

Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :

A1     -        Copy of the letter dated 04.02.2023

A2     -        Copy of the letter dated 11.04.2023

A3     -        Copy of the minutes dated 03.04.2023.

A4     -        Copy of the Abstract

A5     -        Copy of the letter dated 03.02.2023.

A6     -        Copy of the test report dated 03.03.2023.

A7     -        Newspaper copy.

A8     -        Copy of the Notice published on newspaper.

A9     -        Copy of the ID card

A10   -        Copy of the letter dated 01.04.2023

A11   -        Copy of the treatment details

Exhibits from the side of the Opposite Parties :

B1    -       Reply letter dated 13.09.2023

By Order,

sd/-

                                                                                                     Assistant Registrar