IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of January, 2009
Filed on 29.09.08
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.222/08
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Job Mathew, Sri.Rajesh
Vadappuram, Floweran’s Kennel Station
Kokkothamangalam P.O., Block Junction,
Cherthala, Alappuzha - 688 583 Kadathuruthy, Kottayam Dist,
(Adv.Jolly Joseph)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
1. The complainant case is as follows:- The case of the complainant is that consequent to coming across an advertisement in the Malayala Manorama daily, set out on l0th August 2008 the complainant purchased a puppy belonged to the 'German shepherded breed' from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred). At the time of the said puppy being bought, the opposite party impressed upon the complainant that the said puppy was subjected to de-worming and vaccination. The opposite party assured to the complainant that the puppy is perfect, healthy and vigorous. With the result the complainant purchased the puppy. Immediately after the puppy being brought to the house of the complainant it showed signs of ailment. The opposite party was duly informed. The opposite party pacified the complainant reassuring that the puppy would be well within days and advised some medicine for the same. The complainant complied with the instructions of the opposite party, but the condition of the puppy turned from worse to worst. The veterinary surgeon was called up and the doctor diagnosed the disease as 'canine distemper'. The puppy succumbed to the disease very soon. The complainant intimated the opposite party the death of the dog and sought its cost. The opposite party offered another puppy of similar breed of the next litter. When the complainant came across the advertisement once again in the daily he sought a puppy, but the opposite party demanded money for the same. The complainant sent a notice demanding the cost of the dog and other sundry expenses he had to incur pertaining to the transportation and treatment of the puppy. The opposite party declined to comply with the demand and did not make the payment as well. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being sent the opposite party turned up and filed version. The opposite party contended that the puppy he handed over to the complainant was hale and healthy. It was de-wormed and duly vaccinated. The ailment if any afflicted with the dog was solely due to the improper maintenance and inferior handling of the puppy by the complainant. At the time of the puppy being purchased by the complainant, he was fully well convinced of the fitness and vigor of the same. The opposite party never offered to replace the dog or to hand back the price to the complainant. The plight of the puppy was the outcome of the negligence on the part of the complainant. The opposite party is not at liable for any loss if the complainant sustained. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost and compensation to the opposite party.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of his oral testimony, and the documents Exbts Al to A9 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, the document Exbt B 1 was marked.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the points come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) under what circumstances, the puppy succumbed to death?
(2) whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We went through the materials available on record. The counsels take us through the evidence let in on behalf of both the parties. It appears that the purchase of the puppy or its death is not seriously disputed. Though the opposite party, at the time of final hearing raised some question with regard to the death of the dog, the crux of its contentions revolves round the plea that the sad plight of the dog was the consequence of the complainant's negligence and improper maintenance. It is worthy of notice that the opposite party assured the complainant that the puppy was vaccinated. The opposite party issued a certificate to the said effect. However, going by the document produced by the complainant, it seems that the puppy gave in to death on 14th August 2008. And the doctor diagnosed the disease as 'canine distemper'. In this back drop, the plea of the opposite party that the puppy was vaccinated, free from all kinds of infection will not hold water. We are of the view that the opposite party is liable to recompense the complainant for his loss.
6. In the facts and circumstances elaborated herein above, the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the purchase price of the puppy viz.Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred) and an amount of Rs.1500/-( Rupees one thousand five hundred) as compensation for the mental agony he sustained which we think would serve the present purpose. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30days on receipt of this order.
Resultantly, the complainant is allowed accordingly. The parties shall bear their own cost.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Sale letter dated, 10.08.2008
Ext. A2 - Vaccination Certificate dated, 07.08.2008
Ext. A3 - Death Certificate of the puppy
Ext. A4 - Receipt of the Taxi Charge
Ext. A5 - Medical Prescriptions (2Numbers)
Ext. A6 - Copy of the letter to the Opposite party
Ext. A7 - Postal Receipt
Ext. A8 - AD Card
Ext. A9 - Advertisement in the Malayala Manorama
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext. B1 - Pet Instructions
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
