D.O.F:20/12/2019

                                                                                                  D.O.O:30/11/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.255/2019

Dated this, the 30^th day of November 2021

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Deepa Suresh

W/o Suresh Gopalasadanam

Munthante moola, Chamundikkunnu. P.O        : Complainant

Panathadi Village, Rajapuram (Via)

Vallarikund Taluk, Kasaragod District

(Adv:P.K Chandrashekaran Nair)

                                                            And

Lalichan

S/o Abraham

Velliyankal House, Nattakkallu

Vallikkadavu P.O, Parappa (Via)                          : Opposite Party

Malom Village, Vellarikund Taluk

Kasaragod District Pin 671533

(Adv: K.Kumaran Nair)

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER

      This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1989

      The brief facts in this case is that complainant Smt. Deepa suresh purchased a Jercy cow with newly born calf for an amount of Rs. 63,500/- believing the assurance and promise of Opposite Party that the cow is having an yield of 15 litter of milk in the morning and 10 litters in the evening.  But on the next day the cow was yielding only 7 litter of milk in the morning and only 3 liters in the evening.  Complainant having a mini dairy farm unit consists of 7 milk yielding cows at that time.   She has taken care of the new cow very well and had given adequate nutritious cattle feed but the quantity of the milk yielding was not developed further.  The complained informed the matter to Opposite Party.  Opposite party expressed their willingness to take back the cow.  So the complaint has taken back the cow and calf to Opposite Party on 27//08/2019, but Opposite Party was not there could not pay the amount and asked 10 days time for payment.  Thereafter Opposite Party refused to return the amount and evaded from settling the matter.  Complainant caused to send a legal notice to Opposite Party, to Opposite Party call upon to refund the price of cow.  Even though the matter was discussed before SHO Vellarikund and legal service authority Hosdurg  so far the amount is not given.  Hence this complaint.

    The Opposite Party filed version admitting the purchase of Jercy cow with its new born calf for an amount of Rs. 63,500/- from Opposite Party on 2^nd week of August 2019.  Opposite Party denied that he had assured the milk yielding of the cow as 15 litters in the morning and 10 litters in evening.  The complainant purchased the cow after personally examing the yielding and was convinced herself about the quality and quantity of milk yielding. The contention of the complainant that she gave proper care and nutrient feed to the cow is not at all correct.   On 27/08/2019 the complainant had bought the cow and calf to the Opposite Parties house at .8.30pm and left them there.  At that time Opposite Party was not present there and complainant acted prior notice.  Opposite Party denies that he requested 10 days time for the repayment of the amount.  The Opposite Party approached station house officer Vellarikund on 28/08/2019 with a complaint.  Thereupon the matter was mediated by the police on 29/08/2019 the police inspector forced Opposite Party to take back the cow and repay money.  But the next day morning Opposite Parties found that the cow was sick and there were sever rashes appeared in the nipples due to the infections of a kind of small pox.  From the complaint itself it s clear that the complainant is having a mini dairy farm, with 20 cows including 7 milk yielding cows.  So it is to be presumed that the cow was infected from the above said dairy farm.  The infection is caused due to lack of proper care and thus he was constrained to spent Rs. 15,000/- for the treatment of the cow. The complainant is liable to compensate the above said losses and damages suffered by the Opposite Party.

     Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination the documents produced as marked as Ext A1 to A5.  The issues raised for the consideration are

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part Opposite Party in not paying the price of the cow and calf.
2. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
3. If so what is the relief?

Issue No: 1 and 2

    Complainant purchased a cow from Opposite Party believing his assurance regarding quantity of milk only after the purchase she came to know that the yielding of the cow is very less than assured.  When she informed Opposite Party regarding the less yielding of the cow he was ready to take back the cow.  Even though the cow is returned, the price is not refunded so far.  Complainant made all efforts to get back the price.  But Opposite Party evaded from payment by one or other reasons.  This matter is discussed in Vellarikund Police Station legal service authority Hosdurg but so far amount is not returned.  There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party as the milk yielding of the cow is very less than that he claimed.  As soon as cow and calf is returned Opposite Party was bound to return the price of the cow.  The nonpayment of the price of the cow even after many discussions Ext A1 to A5 show there is gross deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.  Due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party complainant is suffered huge loss and mental agony.  Opposite Party is bound to compensate the same.

      After going through the affidavit and complainant documents produced we are of the view that complainant is entitled for relief.  Complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the cow with compensation and cost.  Even though Opposite Party filed version he was not ready to prove his contentions.  Therefore Opposite Party is directed to give compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with Rs.5000/- cost.

      In the result complaint is allowed directing Opposite Party to refund Rs. 63,500/- (Rupees Sixty three thousand and five hundred only) with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost.

     Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the judgement. 

      Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                                            MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Register of Petition

A2- Receipt

A3-Lawyers notice

A4- Complaint filed against OP before Legal service Authority Kasaragod

A5- Notice

     Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                                MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/