By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:
The Complainant has filed the above complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case:-
The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a cow, aged approximately 4 years, from the Opposite Party through Kannadickal Abraham (Kunjukutty) for an amount of Rs.65,000/- on 24/09/2018. At the time of purchasing the cow, the Opposite Party had made an assurance that the cow would calve a calf within one month; there was no history of previous diseases; and as it was the second pregnancy, the cow would give more milk after delivery etc. Believing these words of the Opposite Party, the Complainant had purchased the cow. However, after 52 days, the cow delivered a calf. At the time of delivery, the uterus of the cow came outside and the Complainant gave treatment by spending a huge amount and saved the life of the cow. But the cow did not give more milk as assured; one of the breasts was completely dried. Pursuant to the enquiry, the Complainant got information that at the time of the previous pregnancy the cow had udder swelling and one of the nipples was dried and the Opposite Party suppressed all these facts. After fourth day of delivery, the Complainant returned the cow to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had given assurance that the amount would be refunded within 10 days. But after 10 days the Opposite Party did not refund the amount to the Complainant. This act of the Opposite Party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. So the Complainant is entitled to get back the price of the cow and maintenance cost of Rs.5,600/-. Altogether the Complainant claims to get Rs.81,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint. Hence this complaint.
3. The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version. The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant had purchased the cow from him. But he denied the rest of the allegations set out in the Complaint. According to the Opposite Party, at the time of delivery though the uterus of the cow came out, the Complainant had not given proper medical care. He himself treated the cow and on the fourth day, he abandoned the cow near the premises of the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the Opposite Party gave proper treatment by spending Rs.15,000/-. The Complainant failed to give proper treatment to the cow and he abandoned the cow. The sole reason for complications in delivery of the cow was due to the gross negligence on the part of the Complainant. So the Complainant is not entitled to get back the price of the cow, cost and compensation from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party was forced to sell the cow at a lower price. Hence the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
(1).Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of the
Opposite Party?.
(2).Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed
for?
(3).Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost.
5. Point No. 1 and 2 :- For the sake of convenience the point No.1 and 2 are considered together.
6. On the side of the Complainant, the Complainant was examined as PW-1 and Ext.A-1 series and Ext.B-1documents were marked. The veterinary doctor Dr.Yogesh.K.P was examined as PW-2, Ext.B-2 was marked.
7. On the side of the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party was examined as OPW-1 and Ext.B-3 series and Ext.B-4 series were marked. Dr.Preman was examined as OPW-2 and Pharmacist P.S.Rajimon was examined as OPW-3.
8. Going through the available records and submissions by both sides there is no dispute that the Complainant had purchased the disputed cow from the Opposite Party and the cow had got complications in delivery. PW-1,PW-2 and OPW-2 had identified the photos of the disputed cow. The Complainant has deposed that there were no complaints until delivery. Dr.Yogesh, PW-2 was treated the cow in the initial stage and the Complainant returned the cow after the fourth day of delivery. At the time of cross examination, the Complainant deposed that “]ip {]khn¡p¶Xv hsc F\n¡v ]cmXn Dmbncp¶nÃ." From these words, it is very clear that until the delivery time there was no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party.
9. After examining the exhibits and testimonies, the Commission came to the conclusion that the cow had serious health problems during calving and had not received proper treatment in due course. The Complainant narrated in the complaint and chief affidavit that he had returned the cow to the Opposite Party four days after the delivery of the cow. But at the time of cross-examination, he admitted that the cow had been tied to an electric post in front of the Opposite Party's house during the night of 19/11. At the time of cross examination the Complainant deposed that “19/11 \v cm{Xn ]iphns\ FXrI£nbpsS hoSnsâ ap³]n DÅ CeIv{SnIv t]mÌn sI«n t]mbXmWv''.
10. From all these, it is clear that the Complainant had abandoned the cow on the fourth day of the delivery, which was in a very serious health condition without being given proper treatment. No materials are available before the Commission to prove that the cow had previous illness. If the Complainant initiated legal action after treating the cow properly and returned it there would have been a justification for the Complainant's action. Here the Complainant failed to prove the allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
11. Here the Complainant utterly failed to prove the deficiency of service alleged against the Opposite Party. Hence, point No. 1 and 2 are found against the Complainant.
12. At this juncture, the Commission is not in a position to direct the Opposite Party to refund the purchase price to the Complainant.
13. Point No. 3:- Since the other points are found against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and costs from the Opposite Party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 7th day of December 2021.
Date of Filing: 05.02.2019.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Mohanan. Agriculture.
PW2. Dr.Yogesh. K. P. Veterinary Surgeon.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Jagesh. Driver.
OPW2. Dr. K. S. Preman. Senior Veterinary Surgeon.
OPW3. Dr. P. S. Rajimon. Pharmacist.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1(a). Bill. Dt:22.11.2018.
A1(b). Bill. Dt:22.11.2018.
A1(c). Bill. Dt:22.11.2018.
A2. Copy of Milk Bill. Dt:09.12.2018.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Photograph.
B2. Photograph.
B3(a). Prescription of Dr. K. S. Preman.
B3(b). Prescription of Dr. K. S. Preman.
B4(a). Cash Bill. Dt:20.11.2018.
B4(b). Cash Bill. Dt:23.11.2018.
B4(c). Cash Bill. Dt:23.11.2018.
B4(d). Cash Bill. Dt:23.11.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
