Sri.K. GOPALAN: PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs 7250/- with interest at the rate of 12%.<br /> Complainant’s case in brief are as follows: Complainant is a farmer. He purchased a cow from the opposite party for Rs 5100/- on 7.5.2006. Opposite party did not disclosed the fact that there was a wound on the left side of the cow and it was treated. Because of this illness one side of the cow happened to be weakened. Dr.C.D. Jose treated the cow on 10.5.2006. But disease was not cured by that treatmnent . This was informed to opposite party and with his consent returned cow back to his house on the 13th day of purchase. But he did not pay back the amount. He told the complainant that money will be paid on 28.5.2006. But when the complainant approached the opposite party on the said day he did not pay the amount and behaved badly. On enquiry it was understood that he brought this cow worth Rs 10000/- from his relative for only Rs 4000/- due to the illness and finally when he understood that it was difficult to treat and cure the wound the opposite party found a way to sell it to the complainant. Complainant has suffered a loss of Rs 7250/-. He sent lawyer notice but did not pay the amount. Hence this complaint.<br /> The complaint was once dismissed for default but restored subsequently. Though opposite party received notice did not take care to appear before the Forum nor filed version.<br /> The important question to be decided is whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and if so what is the quantum the complainant entitled for .<br /> The evidence consist of the chief affidavit and Ext. A1 to A4.<br /> The complainant’s chief affidavit and the documents produced by the complainant including lawyer notice shows that the complainant has purchased the cow from the opposite party. Ext. A3 notice gives the entire details of the purchase . Ext. A4 makes it assure that the opposite party has received the lawyer notice sent by the complainant . With the available evidence on record complainant can be believed. Ext. A1 prescription given by Dr. C.D. Jose and Ext. A2 receipt of medicine proves that the cow was under treatment of Dr. Jose for the disease. It also proves that the opposite party sold the cow having such disease without disclosing the facts to the complainant. Hence we are of opinion that there is unfair trade practice by the opposite party. Opposite party is liable to return the amount of Rs 5100/-as price of the cow together with Rs 1000/-as compensation and Rs 500/- as cost of this proceedings. Order passed accordingly.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs 5100/-( Rupees five thousand one hundred only) as the price of the cow together with Rs 1000/-( Rupees one thousand only) as compensation and Rs 500/-( Rupees five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of receiving this order failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Prescription of Dr. C.D. Jose dt. 10.5.2006<br /> A2. Bill dated 10.5.2006 issued from Prasanth Medicals,Cherupuzha.<br /> A3.Copy of lawyer notice dt.6.6.2006 sent to the opposite party<br /> A4. Acknowledgemet card.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the opposite party – Nil<br /> Witness examined on either side – Nil.<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br />