D.O.F. 07.10.2011
D.O.O. 19.01.2013
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2013.
C.C.No.303/2011
Alekutty John,
W/o. K.V. John,
Kuzhuppalliyil (H), : Complainant
Edakkom P.O.
Chapparappadavu Via,
Kannur – 670 581
1. Rajendran,
Kavunkal (H),
Edakkom P.O.
Kanaramvyal
2. A.S. Shanthakumari,
W/o.Rajendran, : Opposite Parties
Kavunkal (H),
Edakkom P.O.
Kanaramvyal
(Both rep. by Adv. K.S. Sajunath)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.23,000 the purchase price of cow along with Rs.39,000 as compensation.
The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a milch cow with calf from opposite party in the presence of two witnesses on 28.09.2011 by giving an amount of Rs.23,000 with an assurance that it will yield more than 12 Liters of milk every day. When it was milked next day onwards the complainant did not yield the promised quantity of 12 Liters of milk and yielded only 8 liters of milk. The complainant informed the same to opposite parties on the same day. On subsequent days also there was no improvement in the yielding. So the complainant went to opposite party and requested him to take back the cow and calf and to return the money. But instead of doing so the opposite parties threatened the complainant and warned about the consequences. So without the intervention of this Forum complainant is not able to get back the money. The complainant has suffered both mental, physical and financial hardships due to the unfair practice of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite parties appeared and filed their version admitting that the complainant purchased a milch cow and a calf from the opposite party on 28.09.2011. But denied the version that the opposite parties have promised that it will yield 12 liters of milk every day. But told to the complainant that the cow will yield more than 10 litres. On 28.09.2011, the opposite parties milked 5 liter milk from the same cow and gave it to the society and on the same day at noon the opposite party had milked 4 liter milk in the presence of the complainant and witnesses when they came to take the cow. Moreover yielding will increase from day by day after delivery. So now the complainant is yielding more than that promised by opposite party. The complainant has been filed as an experiment in order to grab money from the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Pw2, DW1 and DW2 and Ext.B1.
The complainant contended that the opposite parties have sold a cow to the complainant for Rs.23,000 by saying that it will yield 12 litres of milk every day. But from the next day onwards they have got only 8 litres of milk and hence the opposite parties have shown unfair practice. To prove her case PW1 and PW2 were examined. To disprove the case opposite parties also examined as DW1 and DW2. Opposite parties, admits that the complainant has purchased a cow from them on 28.09.2011. But not denied the version that they have received Rs.23,000 as the value of the cow. But denied that they have promised 12 litres of milk. But in the version the opposite party stated that 10 enädn\p apIfn ]m In«psa¶v Cu FXrI£nIÄ ]cmXn¡mcn km£nbmbn ]dªncn¡p¶hcpsS ap¼msI h¨v ]dªncp¶XpamWv. But the complainant have examined the above said one of witness by name Tomy Joseph. He deposed before the Forum that 12 enäÀ ]m In«psa¶v OP 2 ]dªp Regarding the reliability of the words of the PW2 from the deposition of witness itself it is clear that he is in good relationship with the both parties ie the complainant and opposite parties. He deposed before the Forum that cv IpSpw_hpambn Rm³ ]cnNb¯nemWv. H¶mw FXrI£n Fsâ IqsS Sm¸nwKv tPmen sN¿p¶pv. cp I£nIfpw Fsâ AbÂhmknIfmWv. He further deposed that OP1 F\n¡v 500 cq] I½oj³ X¶ncp¶p. So from this deposition, it is seen that the words of the PW2 can be believed and can be relied upon. Moreover the OP1 also deposed before the Forum that Rm³ dºÀ Sm¸nwKv tPmen¡mc\mWv. ]cmXn¡mcn 23,000 cq] X¶v ]iphns\ hm§nbXmbn Rm³ k½Xn¡p¶p. He further deposed before the Forum that km£nIÄ¡v bYmÀ° kwKXnIÄ Adnbmhp¶XmWv F¶v kXyhmMvaqe¯n ]dªn«pv. PW1 and PW2 hns\ hnkvXcn¨Xn\p tijamWv Rm³ kXyhmMvaqew file sNbvXXv. These words also given strength to the reliability of the words of PW2. So the words of PW2 substantiate the case of the complainant that the opposite party had sold the cow to the complainant by saying that it will yield 12 liters of milk.
The further case of the complainant is that eventhough the opposite parties have promised that the cow will yield 12 liters of milk, the cow has yielded only 8 liters of milk. The PW2 deposed before the Forum that the complainant’s husband had complained to him and informed him that he had yielded only eight liters of milk on the very next day morning and on subsequent days also. DW2 is the Secretary of the milk society to whom the complainant used to sell milk. She has produced Ext.B1 document which is the verified copy of purchase register. According to the complainant she has purchased the cow on 28.09.2011. As per Ext.B1 from 29.09.2011 onwards complainant has given milk to the society an average of 12.4 liters per day upto 21.12.11. According to the complainant she has another cow and this averment was not denied by the opposite party. Moreover before 29.09.2011 and is seen that the complainant had supplied milk to the society an average of 2.4 liters per day for 91 days. So the B1 substantiate the case of the complainant that she has a cow before purchase of the alleged cow and used to supply milk. So by deducting 2.4 liters from 12.4 liters as per Ext.B1 it will get 10 liters and considering all these it can be assumed that the complainant is getting 10 liters of milk from the alleged cow. The opposite party contended that yielding of milk of the cow will be increasing day by day after delivery. But according to complainant there was no improvement with milk yield even after giving good feed and fodder. The complainant contended that she has purchased the cow by giving Rs.23,000 only because of the assurance given by the opposite parties that it will yield 12 liters of milk every day. Moreover during that days the price of a cow yielding 8 liters of milk is Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000. The opposite party has not challenged these statements of the complainant. So considering all these aspects we are of the opinion that the alleged cow had yielded only 10 liters of milk and hence the opposite parties have shown unfair practice by selling the cow with false representation. So the opposite parties are liable to refund the above said amount of Rs.3000 to the complainant along with Rs.1000 as cost of the proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive the same and orders passed accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.3000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) which was received by them as excessive amount from the complainant along with Rs.1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2012.
Sd Sd
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
Nil
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Copy of the page of Bonus Register of Milk Society.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant.
PW2. Tomy Joseph.
Witness examined for opposite party
DW1. K.K. Rajendran
DW2. Nisha K.V.
forwarded by order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
