D.O.F:21/07/2022

                       D.O.O:20/06/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.161/2022

Dated this, the 20^th day of June 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                          : MEMBER

Mathai. K.A,

S/o Antony,

Kannampallil (H),

Peradala (P.O),                                                           : Complainant

Badiyadukka.

(Adv: B. Ganesha)

                                                And                                

1.K.S Ganesh Rao,

S/o. K. Srinivasa Rao,                                     : Opposite Party

Ganesh Kripa

Near Mujangavu Temple

Edanad, Kasaragod P.O 671321

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G  : MEMBER

The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a pregnant cow from Opposite Party No: 1 on 09/04/ 22 for Rs. 36500/-.  One Sureshbabu introduced the Opposite Party to the complainant.  The complainant purchased the cow believing the information given by Opposite Party that the cow is giving 18 Ltrs of milk and its behaviour is very smooth.  After 20 days of purchase the cow delivered a calf, and it is not permitting to feed the calf from delivery itself.  The cow got annoyed when the complainant tried to milk the calf and it was kicked.  For the first 11 days of delivery the cow gave only 2 ltrs of milk, when informed to the Opposite Party he promised to come and help the complainant. But it is postponed for one or other reason.  On 15/05/2022 the Opposite Party’s wife Sukanya filed a false complaint against the complainant as petition No: 370/2022 before the Kumbala Police Station.  As per the direction the Kumbala Police station the complainant convinced the fraud and cheating played by the Opposite Party and his wife.  The Opposite Party affirmed that the cow will give 18 Ltrs of milk and have no violence behaviour.  Accordingly, on 15/05/2022 itself the complainant took the cow and calf to the house of the Opposite Party and on 22/05/2022 the complainant went to the house of Opposite Party while milking the cow by the Opposite Party.  It gave only 2 ltrs of Milk.  As per the direction from Kumbala Police Station the complainant filed petition before legal service authorities Kasaragod as per PLP No:3244/2022.  But the petition is disposed on 20/07/2022 as exparte without hearing the complainant.  Hence this complaint.  The allegation of complainant the act of Opposite Party is with an intention to deceive the complainant and it caused severe mental agony and loss to the complainant.  Hence the complainant is seeking a direction against Opposite Party to refund Rs. 36500/- (being the price of the cow) with a compensation of Rs. 50,000 and cost.

          Opposite Party filed counter stating that the complaint is false frivolous and liable to be dismissed.

          According to the Opposite Party the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.  The Opposite Party further states that he has not sold cow as alleged in the complaint.  The Opposite Party has not received any amount as alleged.  The allegation in the complaint that the Opposite Party has sold a cow to the complainant for Rs. 36,500/-, and the cow was pregnant at that time, that the cow delivered after 20 days that Opposite Party has promised that the cow will give 18 ltrs of milk and it has no violence and the cow used to give                    only 2 ltrs of milk and the cow was not allowed to milking and it is used to kick and it was convinced to Opposite Party they give police complaint and as per mediation at police station it was decided to sent back the cow to the Opposite Party and it give only 2 ltrs of milk and the complainant as suffered great loss and mental agony, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the complainant is entitled to compensation etc are false and hence denied.    The petition lodged before DLSA by the complainant was decided since the DLSA was convinced that there is no merit in the complaint and the Opposite Party is not liable for anything.  This complaint is filed only to harass the Opposite Party.  The contention raised by the complainant regarding compensation and the price of the cow is high and excessive.  There for the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

          The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the document produced is marked as Ext A1.  Ext A1 is the receipt issued by SHO Kumbala infavour of the complainant regarding the petition lodged by the wife of the Opposite Party.

The question raised for consideration are :

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any unfair trade practice/deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party in the sale of cow
3. Whether the complainant entitled for relief?
4. If so what is the relief?

For convenience issue No: 1 and 2 can be discussed together

Here the complainant purchased a cow for Rs. 36500/- believing the promise given by Opposite Party that the cow gives 18 ltrs of milk per day and is of good quality and ehavior.  But after the delivery, the cow did not permitted to feed the calf the cow got annoyed when the complainant try to milking the calf.  And it kicked the calf and the complainant is wife.  The cow gave only 2 ltrs of milk instead of 18 ltrs.  So the complainant approached Opposite Party with the complaint.  The Opposite Party offered to assist the complainant in milking the calf and will help to get 18 ltrs of milk from the cow.  But it is delayed for one or other reason.  Thereafter complainant’s wife give a complaint in the Kumbala police station.  Ext A1 document proves that complaint is given by Sukanya wife of Ganesh Rao and as per the complaint the police called up both parties and made an enquiry.   As per the direction from police station complainant returned the cow to Opposite Party.  Certainly, there is unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party promised that the cow gives 18 ltrs of milk per day.  Due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite Party the complainant suffered loss and mental agony.  The complainant tried to settled issue with the help of Kumbala Police Station but the opposite party not co-operated with the attempt.  The complainant had given a petition to DLSA Kasaragod that also is ordered exparte.  All these attempts made by the complainant failed due to the non-corporation of the Opposite Party and the complainant suffered severe mental agony and loss .The complainant is entitled for relief

Even though Opposite Party filed version he has not taken any step to prove their part by adducing evidence.  In the absence of contra evidence complainants case stands proved.   Therefore Ext A1 proves that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.  The complainant is seeking a direction against Opposite Party to refund the price of the cow with compensation and cost. Considering the circumstances of this case the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with cost. 

In the result complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite Party to refund Rs. 36,500/- (Rupees Thirty six thousand Five hundred only) with a compensation with Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) along with Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to the complainant.

The time for compliance is 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.

      Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

Exhibit

A1- A letter issued by SHO Kumbala

   Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/