CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North consumer case(CC) No. 138/2004
Annakutty
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Rajan
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for the relief from the Opposite Party. The brief of the complaint is as follows. The Complainant purchased a cow along with its calf in the month of April 2004. The price agreed with the party was Rs.8,500/- and it was paid on the date of purchase. The Opposite Party assured the Complainant the cow milks 9 litres and it was 2nd calving. Relying on the words of the Opposite Party the Complainant purchased the cow. According to the Complainant the cow was properly tended but it milked only 4 litres in total including morning and evening sessions. The quantity of the milk when found to be lesser than the promise, the Opposite Party was informed. The Opposite party was told by the Complainant to take back the cow and refund the amount paid. How ever the request of the Complainant was unattended. It was also informed that the Opposite Party is liable to give Rs.4,500/-. The excess amount (Contd..........2) - 2 - received from the Complainant. The act of the Opposite Party is an unfair trade practice. There may be a direction to the Opposite Party to take back the cow which was sold and to refund Rs.8,500/- to the Complainant along with the interest at the rate of 12% from June 2004 on words or the Opposite Party may be directed to return Rs.4,000/-, The excess amount received from the Complainant and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. According to the Opposite Party he has not sold any cow to the Complainant instead it was sold to one Reji Kuriakose. The Cow was sold on 19th May 2004. Along with Reji Kuriakose one Kumar had also come to him for the purchase of the cow. The Cow was milked and shown to the parties, who came therefor purchase. The Party convinced that the cow milked instantly 3½ litres. On the very next day Raji Kuriakose and Kumar came to the house again, 5 litres of milk was milked and shown to them. Raji Kuriakose gave Rs. 8,500/- to the Opposite Party and the sale was confirmed. The Opposite Party cut through his life for the last 20 years basing on the income of the milking of the cow the Opposite Party had no prior knowledge of the allegations. It was known to him for the first time when the Complainant lodged a petition in Kenichira Police Station. The allegations of the Complainant is without any basis. The cow was sold agreeing upon the terms that it milked 8.5 litres and the price agreed at Rs.8,500/-, the value assigned for the cow is comparatively less. The Opposite Party is no more liable to pay the relief to the Complainant. The petition is baseless and is to be dismissed. The Points that are to be considered are: 1.Whether the Opposite Party did unfair trade practice? 2.Relief and costs. (Contd..... 3) 3 - Point No.1: The Complainant is examined as PW1 no documents supporting the claim was produced. According to the Complainant only 4½ litres of milk was received when the cow was milked. At the time of sale discussion one Jaison had come to their house he too witnessed the sale. For the purchase of the cow the Complainant her husband and the Son Reji Kuriakose went to the house of the Opposite party. The contention of the Opposite party that the cow was not sold to the Complainant is baseless. Reji Kuriakose is the Son of the Complainant. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. The Opposite party deposed on cross examination the cow milked only 8 litres is baseless. Anyhow he was agreed to give Rs.750/- to the Complainant as a settlement which was talked from the Police Station Kenichira and he is not ready to pay that amount at this time. The Opposite Party testimonied that the cow was sold on 27th day after calving. He had given milk in the society for 22 days. The Pass book issued to the Opposite Party by Vakery Kzherolpadaka Sahakaran Sangam is the documents produced by the Opposite Party which is marked as Ext.B1. The relevant page of the Pass book shows that 8 litres of milk was not sold to the Milk Society. It is asserted by the Opposite Party that he sold milk to the Society after taking one liters of milk for his own use. The contention of the Opposite Party that he milked 8.5 litres is not substantiated by the document produced. The relevant page of the Ext.B1 shows that the Opposite Party supplied milk to the concerned Society from the May 3 on words. The sale of milk continued till the 20th of May 2004 the Opposite Party already admitted that he has sold the milk to the Society for 20 days. The sale of cow to the Complainant was effected on the 27th day after calving. The Ext.B1 shows that no milk was supplied by the Opposite Party from 21st may on words till the end of that month. An average of milk yielded for the last 10 days prior to the sale reveals that the cow supplied near about 6 litres of milk. (Contd..........4) - 4 - According to the Opposite Party the sale of the cow based on the rate of Rs.1,000/- per litre. If calculated on the basis of Rs.1,000/- per liter of milk the value of the cow at the most estimates to Rs.6,000/-. It is seen that Rs. 2,500/- an excess was received by the Opposite Party. The contention of the Opposite Party that around one litre of milk was taken by him for his own use is not supported by any evidence. The point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party. Point No.2: The Opposite Party received Rs.2,500/- in excess than the actual price that he deserve for. The excess amount that the Opposite Party received from the Complainant is to be returned along with the cost. In the result the Opposite Party is directed to return the Complainant Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand Five hundred only) along with the cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within one month from the date of this order. In case of any failure on the part of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to execute this order according to the provisions of law. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 19th day of October 2007.
