Kerala

Trissur

OP/03/820

Rappai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Johny - Opp.Party(s)

O.R.Anandhan

30 Jun 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. OP/03/820

Rappai
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Johny
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Rappai

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Johny

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. O.R.Anandhan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. N.N.Geebels



Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President Petitioner’s case is as follows: Petitioner bought a Cow from the respondent on 1/8/03 for Rs.8,000/-. The respondent and his wife made it believe that the cow belongs to the category of New Jersy and 7 Ltrs. of milk is available for each milking. On the basis of this assurance the cow is bought by the petitioner. The petitioner reared the cow very carefully and only 4 litres milk is availed for each milking. It was realized by the petitioner that only 4 litres milk is available from the cow. By concealing this fact the respondent sold the cow to the petitioner. Rs.8,000/- received as cost of the cow is very high and it costs only Rs.4,000/-. Due to the acts of the respondent the petitioner suffered mental agony. So this petition filed. The respondent filed version as follows: 2. It is incorrect to say that the cost of the cow is Rs.8,000/- and it is Rs.4,000/-. The respondent did not make any representation that 7 litres milk is available from the cow. It had provided 5 ½ to 6 litres milk and 5 litres milk is sold in the milk society by the petitioner. For selling the cow nothing is suppressed from the petitioner. The amount received for the cow is only Rs.4,000/- and due to the deficiency in rearing the cow the quantity of milk is reduced to 4 litres. Hence dismiss the petition. 3.Points for consideration: 1)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.4,000/- as prayed? 2)Whether he is entitled for compensation? 3)Reliefs and costs? 4. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and exhibits P1to P2 and Exhibits R1 to R3. Point No.1 5. According to the petitioner he has bought the cow for Rs.8,000/-. The respondent in his counter stated that the amount received for the cow is only Rs.4,000/-. There is no document evidencing it. When PW1 is examined he has deposed that Due to the long acquaintance, receipt is not issued. Both are know the quantity of milk and the cost of cow etc. The petitioner stated that only 4 litres milk is availed for each milking. Respondent in his counter 2nd para stated that 3 ½-6 litres milk was available and he used to sell the milk in the Society. In para 2 he has contended that only 4 litre milk was availed. So he was not sure about the quantity of milk. If 5 ½-6 litres milk was available they will not sell it for such a low price. There is no solid evidence to arrive at a conclusion. If 5 1/2 to 6 litres milk was available the respondent would not sell the cow for Rs.4,000/-. So the cost of the cow shall come as the cost paid by the petitioner. Non-availability of the milk as assured may be due to the deficiency in rearing. 6. In the result petition is dismissed. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 30th June 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.