DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 12th day of June 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing : 05/09/2013
CC No.151/2013
R.Bhaskaran,
S/o.Raghava Panicker,
Sivasakthi, Ambalimettil,
Vemballur Post,
Palakkad – 678 502
(By Adv.C.B.Anand) - Complainant
Vs
1.P.K.Ali,
Ansi Goat Farm,
Edathala North (PO),
Alwaye – 683 564
(Party in Person)
2.Circulation Manager
Harithabhoomi,
Foundation for Organic
Agriculture & Rural Development,
Thottumugam (PO), Aluva – 683 105 - Opposite parties
O R D E R
Order by Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:
Complainant is an ex-serviceman. Induced by the advertisement by 1st opposite party in “Harithabhoomi” monthly, complainant purchased 7 goats for Rs.21,189/- from 1st opposite party’s farm. The purchase was on 22/06/2012. The very next day itself two of them died. Complainant got the other goats examined by a Veterinary Surgeon and found that the goats were affected by some contagious disease. Prior to the purchase from 1st opposite party, complainant has with him 15 number of goats. Due to the disease, around 20 of the goats died. 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in selling the infected goats. Although settlement talks were conducted in the presence of Dy.Superintendent of Police, it did not materialized. Due to the act of 1st opposite party, complainant incurred an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards treatment, travelling etc., Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakh as compensation.
2nd opposite party was set exparte. 1st opposite party filed version contending the following:
Purchase of 7 goats for Rs.21,189/- is admitted. After one week of purchase complainant telephoned and informed some health problem with respect to one of the goat. After conversation with the complainant, 1st opposite party understood that the complainant has given waste food materials to the goats. Complainant was well in advance informed that such food cannot be given to the cross breeds goats as that of the complainant’s. Complainant was also informed about the importance of availing insurance in case of any loss. After 2 days complainant intimated about the death of 2 goats, but nothing was informed regarding any health problems with respect to other goats. 1st opposite party promised to give 2 goats in place of the dead ones. Though there was no supporting document on the part of the complainant, 1st opposite party was amenable for a settlement for Rs.12,000/- considering the fact that complainant was new to the field. But complainant was not amenable for settlement. 1st opposite party is a person having 7 years experience in the relevant field and has also received many awards. According to 1st opposite party complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The evidence adduced consists of the chief affidavit of the complainant.
Ext.A1 to A6 marked. Though opposite party has filed chief affidavit, it was not taken on file for want of payment of cost.
Issues for consideration.
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on
the side of the opposite parties ?
2.If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No.1&2
Purchase of 7 goats from 1st opposite party is admitted. The allegation of the complainant that two of them died on the very next day of purchase is not supported by any evidence. On the contrary, complainant’s own documents marked as Ext.A6. which is the complaint forwarded under the head “Sutharya Kerala” it is stated that three of them died on the very next day.Complainant’s affidavit and documents itself are contradictory. Further allegation that around 20 of the goats died due to the contagious disease affected from the goats purchased from 1st opposite party is also not supported by any documentary evidence. Ext.A5 only reveals about the death of one goat. PW1 has deposed that around 8 – 9 goats were treated by him. We are of the view that if the no. of goats died is twenty, certainly it would have find a place in Ext.A6 which is the complaint forwarded to “Sutharaya Keralam”. Regarding the evidence with respect to selling of infected goat and subsequent spreading of the disease to other goats, we accept the contention of the complainant in the absence of contrary evidence on the part of 1st opposite party. The affidavit filed out of time on behalf of 1st opposite party was not taken on file for want of payment of cost. The compensation claimed by the complainant seems to be on a higher side. Cost of a goat as per Ext.A3 is approximately Rs.4,000/-. There is no documentary evidence with respect to treatment expenses. So we are of the view that an amount of Rs.15,000/- will meet the ends of justice.
In the result, complaint partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation to the complainant alongwith Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. 2nd opposite party is exonerated from liability as there is no specific allegation against them. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 12th day of June 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Report of opposite party’s farm published in the “Harithabhoomi”
publication
Ext.A2 –Brochure of opposite party
Ext.A3 – Payment details of goats purchased from opposite party for
Rs.21,189/-(Photocopy)
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of Treatment Certificate
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of Postmortem Report.
Ext.A6 – Letter received from DySP, Palakkad
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Dr.N.Ponnumani
Cost allowed
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Fair copy on : 10/07/2014
Despatched on :
