By. Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

            This is a complaint preferred under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

            2.  Facts of the complaint in brief:- 

              The Complainant is a dairy farmer and rearing of cows is the sole income for him and his family for livelihood.  On 31.10.2020 the Complainant purchased a cow from the Opposite Party for Rs.53,500/-.  At the time of sale, the Opposite Party convinced the Complainant that the cow will deliver within two weeks and it will fetch him 17-18 litres of milk.  The cow delivered but it had only four litres of milk per day.  As a result the Complainant discussed the matter with the broker of the transaction, one Sathar, and as per his direction the Complainant conveyed the matter to the Opposite Party.  But the Opposite Party did not co-operate to solve the problem and as such the Complainant filed a petition against the Opposite Party in Meenangady Police Station on 16.11.2020.  After a long days, the Opposite Party visited the police Station on 24.11.2020 and reached and inspected the cow at the residence of the Complainant.  The Opposite Party was not willing to refund the entire price of the cow, instead he offered to take back the cow paying Rs.30,000/-.  The Opposite Party wrongly convinced the Complainant that the cow will get more milk and made the Complainant purchase the cow.  This is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party, which has caused financial, physical and mental hardships to the Complainant.  Hence this complaint was filed by him with the  following prayers.

1. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation,
2. To direct the Opposite Party to take back the cow and to refund Rs.53,500/- together with interest @ 12% with effect from 31.10.2020,
3. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.15,000/- being the expenses incurred for the treatment and good health of the cow.
4. To direct the Opposite Party to pay cost of this complaint and
5. To order such other relief that the Complainant may seek and the Commission deems fit enough to grant.

3.  Commission registered a case and notice was issued to the Opposite Party for appearance. He entered appearance and version was filed but no documents were marked from his side and he was examined as OPW1.  The broker of the transaction, One Sathar, was examined as OPW2.    Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant and Ext.A1 was marked from his side which is the acknowledgment slip issued by the Sub Inspector of Meenangady Police Station.  The Complainant was examined as PW1 and the complaint was finally heard on 19.08.2022.

4.  Brief contents of version filed by the Opposite Party:-

  The Opposite Party admitted the sale and delivery of the cow to the Complainant but he denied that he had convinced the Complainant that the cow will get 17-18 litres of milk.  The Opposite Party contents that the Opposite Party had purchased the cow from another person.  When the cow was conceived for seven months and looking after it with better care, the Complainant, came and after seeing it, purchased the cow as he was attracted to it.  The quantity of milk before and after delivery of the cow was not known to the Opposite Party.  No such guarantee of milk was given to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party contents that there may be decrease in the quantity of milk if due care is not given after delivery of the cow.  The Opposite Party has acted only as a dealer of the cow.  The cow was purchased and kept by the Opposite Party only for a few days.  The Opposite Party had no other information as to the nature of the cow.  On the other hand the Complainant being a dairy farmer he has more knowledge than that of the Opposite Party.  After delivery of the cow, the Complainant had requested the Opposite Party to take back the cow and to give a small profit to the Complainant telling that the Complainant was not in a position to look after the cow due to the non co-operation of his family.  The Complainant demanded refund of Rs.53,500/- for which the Opposite Party was not willing and as a consequence the Complainant filed a petition to the Meenangady Police Station.  All other allegations of the Complainant are denied by the Opposite Party.  According to him no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service has been happened from his side and therefore he prays before the Commission to dismiss this complaint with compensatory cost to the Opposite Party.

5.  Commission perused the complaint, version, chief affidavit, documents filed and the Oral evidence adduced by PW1, OPW1 and OPW2 and the following points are raised for consideration.

(1) Whether there  has been any unfair trade practice/deficiency in

       service from the part of the Opposite Party…?

(2)  Whether the Complainant has the right to get refund of the

       purchase price of the cow from the Opposite Party…?

(3)  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed

        for….?

(4) Whether the Complainant is eligible to get recoupment of the

       expenses incurred by him for treatment of the cow and for keeping

      the good health of the cow…?

(5)  Order as to cost and

(6)  Any other relief as prayed for

6. Point No.1:-  It is the admitted fact that the Complainant had purchased the cow for Rs.53,500/- from the Opposite Party.  The main allegation of the Complainant is that though the Opposite Party had convinced the Complainant that the cow will fetch 17-18 litres of milk after delivery, the Complainant could get only four litres of milk per day and as such the Complainant demanded the Opposite Party to take back the cow and to  refund the purchase price of the cow as the Opposite Party played unfair trade practice/deficiency in service upon the Complainant.  Ext.A1 reveals that the Complainant had filed a petition in this regard against the Opposite Party as the Opposite Party was not ready to take back the cow and refund its purchase price.  The Opposite Party contents that he had purchased the cow from some other person at Karyampady and which was sold to the Complainant and states that he had not convinced the Complainant telling that the cow will fetch him 17-18 litres of milk, as the Opposite Party had looked after the cow under his custody only for a short period.  He also revealed that he is a dealer in purchase and sale of cows.  In oral evidence the Opposite Party has stated the following  “]iphns\ hm§nb (lÀPn¡mc³) \sÃmcp £ocIÀjI\mWv.  F\n¡v ]iphns\ X¶ BtfmSv F{X enäÀ ]mev In«psa¶v Rm³ tNmZn¨n«nÃ.  Fsâ Imgv¨¸mSn 8 apX 10 hsc ]m In«psa¶mWv.  Fsâ km¶n[y¯n Idh \S¯Wsa¶v Rm³ ]dªn«nÔ.    The Opposite Party had contended that if the cow is not looked after properly for keeping its good health, there may be decrease in the quantity of milk.  The Opposite Party himself has deposed in oral evidence that the Complainant is a good dairy farmer and hence this contention of the Opposite Party could not be believed that the Complainant may not have looked after the cow properly as he is a good dairy farmer.  OPW2 has also deposed in oral evidence that “3 sImÃw ap³]v 53,500 cq]bv¡v km[mcW 10 enäÀ ]m In«p¶ ]iphns\ In«pw”.  Here OPW1 and OPW2 have stated that about 10 litres of milk should have been fetched from the cow. Considering the price of the cow and other circumstances, being an experienced dairy farmer, the Complainant should not have purchased a cow for Rs.53,500/- for getting only four litres of milk per day.  Being an ordinary prudent man having sufficient experience in dairy farming shall not purchase a cow without getting information as to the average income that he can earn by getting and selling a reasonable amount of milk.  Being a seller, it is the duty of the vendor to ensure good quality of the product he has sold. Here the plea of the Opposite Party as to the fact that (1) the cow he sold to the Complainant was purchased from Karyampadi and he was unaware of the nature of the cow and its milking capacity; (2) He had not given any guarantee as to the fetching of milk; (3) The decrease in the quantity of milk may be because of the lack of giving proper care as to the good health of the cow; (4)  No ‘alacheet’ was prepared etc will not come to the help of the Opposite Party for contesting and winning the complaint in his favour.  Though a álacheet’was prepared the Opposite Party has admitted that he had sold the cow to the Complainant.  The Opposite Party has not raised any dispute as to the price of the cow sold by him.  The Opposite Party was not willing to take back the poor quality of cow he sold and refund its price.  So, here we see that the Complainant has lost his money and had to face physical and mental hardships.  This has happened due to the poor quality of cow that the Opposite Party has sold to the Complainant at a higher price.  So there has been unfair trade practice/deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party.  Other allegations raised by the Opposite Party are purely technical and immaterial and hence deserve no consideration and hence discarded.  So Point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant.

            7. Point No.2 to 5:-  As Point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant he has the right to get refund of the purchase price of the cow, compensation, recoupment of expenses excluding treatment expenses as no documents are produced by the Complainant to substantiate the treatment and cost of the complaint. So Point No.2 to 5 are also proved in favour of the Complainant.

            8. Point No.6:-  No other relief has been prayed for and we find no other relief is fit enough to be granted to the Complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is ordered to

1.  Take back the cow from the Complainant and to refund Rs.53,500/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand and Five Hundred Only) together with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of this complaint,
2. Pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation,
3. Pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for expenses for looking after the cow and
4. Pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the complaint.

The above orders shall be obeyed within one month from the date of this Order, failing which the amount will carry interest @8% per annum from the date of this order till realization of the amount.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^nd day of August 2022.

Date of Filing:-27.11.2020.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainants:-

PW1.              K. K. Jose.                                                     Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Sreeraj. G.                                                    Computer Engineer.

OPW2.          Abdul Sathar.                                              Nil.

Exhibits for the complainants:

A1.                  Acknowledgment Receipt issued from Meenangady Police Station.

                        Dt:27.11.2020,

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.     

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.