O R Rajendran V/S M R Sreenivasan - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Wayanad

42/2006

M R Sreenivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

O R Rajendran - Opp.Party(s)

24 Dec 2007

ORDER

CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. 42/2006

M R Sreenivasan						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
O R Rajendran						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. K GHEEVARGHESE

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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

PRESENT: Sri. K. Gheevarhese, M.A, L.L.B - President Smt. Saji Mathew, B.A, L.L.B - Member M.R. Sreenivasan, : S/o. Ramakrishna Gowder, : Padikkam Vayal, : Complainant Arinchermala P.O, : Panamaram. : O.R. Rajendran, : S/o. O.K. Ramachandran, : Koralabatta House, : Opposite party. Meenangadi. : Complainant by : Sri. K.M. Thomas, Advocate Kalpetta. Opposite party by : Sri. P.B. Vinod Kumar, Advocate Kalpetta. ORDER By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member: The gist of the case is as follows: The Complainant had purchased a cow from the Opposite party for Rs. 21,000/-. On 27.10.2005, he made negotiation and paid Rs. 14,600/-. On the next day he paid the balance Rs. 7,400/- and taken home the cow. The Opposite party had assured that mother cow milked 25 litre per day and the cow sold will provide 22 litres. The Complainant even after taking good care of the cow, the cow milked only 6 liters in the morning and 2 ½ litre after noon. The Complainant informed the Opposite party about the less quantity of the milk and requested to make some payments back. But the Opposite party did not agree and hence this (Contd......2) -2- complaint. The Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite party to repay Rs.22,000/- with 12% interest and other cost and compensation. The Opposite party's version is that he had not made any assurance about the quantity of milk. The cow was sold 4 days after the first delivery and it was not possible to give any assurance about the quantity of milk at that time and the price fixed at that time is Rs. 15,000/- and not at Rs. 22,000/- the complainant has paid only 14,600/- for the cow. So there is no ground and the complaint is baseless hence is to be dismissed. The issues to be considered are as follows:- 1. Whether any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite parties. 2. Any order as to cost or compensation. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and one Aboobacker, was examined as PW2, Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the Complainant. The Opposite party is examined as OPW1 and one Sworoop was examined as OPW2. Point No.1 Ext.B1 in this case, the Opposite Party has stated in his version that Complainant came to his house and offered to buy his cow. It is deposed that he sold the cow belonging to his wife house and was only an agent. Again he says that again the Opposite party says that he had brought the cow from one Poulose, and the Opposite party doesn't say that he had (Contd.....3) -3- bought the cow for his wife house. The Opposite party admits that he himself had received the price of the cow and when the Complainant took the cow he was not there. Nobody will pay the entire price before hand in buying a cow. So, the complainant's side can be true that the balance is paid on next day and the cow was taken by the Complainant on that day. The Opposite party admits that he used to buy and sell cattle. PW2 is seemed to be his associate. The Opposite party also rears cattle and it is possible that he had made misrepresentations about the cow and gained a good business. So the Complainant can be believed and the version of the Opposite party does not have the credibility. It is found that the Complainant has assured loss due to the act of the Opposite party. Hence point No.1 is held against the Opposite party. Point No.2 However the Complainant has already sold the cow for Rs. 7500/- . The Complainant does not state how long he has kept the cow and milked it. He admits that 14,600/- is a high price for this cow. So it is found that Rs. 7,400/- is excessively charged by the Opposite party and this amount is to be returned to the Opposite party. Therefore it is held that the Opposite Party is to pay Rs. 7,400/- (Rupees Seven thousand and four hundred only) to the Complainant with 9% interest from the date of this order till payment. The Complainant is entitled to execute the order as per law. Pronounced in open forum on this the 24th day of December 2007. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD APPRENDIX Witnesses for the Complainant: PW1 Sreenivasan.M.R Complainant PW2 Aboobacker Agriculture Witnesses for the Opposite party: OPW1 Rajendran Agriculture OPW2 Sworoop Business Exhibits for the Complainant: A1 Animal Health Certificate Dt: 14.11.1965. Exhibits for the Opposite party B1 Letter from Complainant PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.

PRESENT: Sri. K. Gheevarhese, M.A, L.L.B - President Smt. Saji Mathew, B.A, L.L.B - Member M.R. Sreenivasan, : S/o. Ramakrishna Gowder, : Padikkam Vayal, : Complainant Arinchermala P.O, : Panamaram. : O.R. Rajendran, : S/o. O.K. Ramachandran, : Koralabatta House, : Opposite party. Meenangadi. : Complainant by : Sri. K.M. Thomas, Advocate Kalpetta. Opposite party by : Sri. P.B. Vinod Kumar, Advocate Kalpetta. ORDER By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member: The gist of the case is as follows: The Complainant had purchased a cow from the Opposite party for Rs. 21,000/-. On 27.10.2005, he made negotiation and paid Rs. 14,600/-. On the next day he paid the balance Rs. 7,400/- and taken home the cow. The Opposite party had assured that mother cow milked 25 litre per day and the cow sold will provide 22 litres. The Complainant even after taking good care of the cow, the cow milked only 6 liters in the morning and 2 ½ litre after noon. The Complainant informed the Opposite party about the less quantity of the milk and requested to make some payments back. But the Opposite party did not agree and hence this (Contd......2) -2- complaint. The Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite party to repay Rs.22,000/- with 12% interest and other cost and compensation. The Opposite party's version is that he had not made any assurance about the quantity of milk. The cow was sold 4 days after the first delivery and it was not possible to give any assurance about the quantity of milk at that time and the price fixed at that time is Rs. 15,000/- and not at Rs. 22,000/- the complainant has paid only 14,600/- for the cow. So there is no ground and the complaint is baseless hence is to be dismissed. The issues to be considered are as follows:- 1. Whether any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite parties. 2. Any order as to cost or compensation. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and one Aboobacker, was examined as PW2, Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the Complainant. The Opposite party is examined as OPW1 and one Sworoop was examined as OPW2. Point No.1 Ext.B1 in this case, the Opposite Party has stated in his version that Complainant came to his house and offered to buy his cow. It is deposed that he sold the cow belonging to his wife house and was only an agent. Again he says that again the Opposite party says that he had brought the cow from one Poulose, and the Opposite party doesn't say that he had (Contd.....3) -3- bought the cow for his wife house. The Opposite party admits that he himself had received the price of the cow and when the Complainant took the cow he was not there. Nobody will pay the entire price before hand in buying a cow. So, the complainant's side can be true that the balance is paid on next day and the cow was taken by the Complainant on that day. The Opposite party admits that he used to buy and sell cattle. PW2 is seemed to be his associate. The Opposite party also rears cattle and it is possible that he had made misrepresentations about the cow and gained a good business. So the Complainant can be believed and the version of the Opposite party does not have the credibility. It is found that the Complainant has assured loss due to the act of the Opposite party. Hence point No.1 is held against the Opposite party. Point No.2 However the Complainant has already sold the cow for Rs. 7500/- . The Complainant does not state how long he has kept the cow and milked it. He admits that 14,600/- is a high price for this cow. So it is found that Rs. 7,400/- is excessively charged by the Opposite party and this amount is to be returned to the Opposite party. Therefore it is held that the Opposite Party is to pay Rs. 7,400/- (Rupees Seven thousand and four hundred only) to the Complainant with 9% interest from the date of this order till payment. The Complainant is entitled to execute the order as per law. Pronounced in open forum on this the 24th day of December 2007. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD APPRENDIX Witnesses for the Complainant: PW1 Sreenivasan.M.R Complainant PW2 Aboobacker Agriculture Witnesses for the Opposite party: OPW1 Rajendran Agriculture OPW2 Sworoop Business Exhibits for the Complainant: A1 Animal Health Certificate Dt: 14.11.1965. Exhibits for the Opposite party B1 Letter from Complainant PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.

......................K GHEEVARGHESE