Date of filing : 03-09-2013
Date of order : 25-06-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.205/2013
Dated this, the 25th day of June 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
B.Ramachandran Nambiar, : Complainant
S/o.Kodoth Krishnan Nair,
Shankarankad (H), Kolathur.Po,
Chengala, Kasaragod. 671541.
(Adv.C.Krishnakumar, Kasaragod)
Ravindran.M, : Opposite party
S/o.Madhavan Variyar,
R/at Door No.47/13 Mekkalath,
Eyyakkat, Udinoor.Po,
Kasaragod. 671310
(Adv.Naveen Shankar, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant Sri.Ramachandran Nambiar is that he is a farmer, running a cattle farm with cows and eking livelihood through from it, and in search of a lactating cow the complainant contacted the opposite party through agents. Complainant with his wife visited his house and cattle farm on 12-06-2013 to look CHF breed cow. The opposite party persuaded the complainant and made him to believe that the particular cow given birth to a calf 20 days back and having lactation power of 15 litres in morning and 8 litres in the evening. Believing the words of opposite party complainant paid Rs.37,500/- being the consideration and took the cow to his farm. But the complainant was surprised by the low lactation capacity of the cow which gives only 2 litres of milk per day and the matter was informed to opposite party. But the opposite party mislead the complainant by putting one or other reasons. Complainant sent a registered lawyer notice on 8-7-2013 to opposite party and the same was received by him and not replied. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Adv. Naveen Shankar filed vakalath and version for opposite party. Opposite party in their version admits that the complainant purchased a cow from opposite party but the amount was vehemently denied. The opposite party has received only Rs.17,500/- as sale proceeds. After getting satisfied with the cow the complainant paid a token advance of Rs.500/- to opposite party. The very next day the complainant took over the possession of the cow and while leaving Mr.Sumesh handed over Rs.17000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party was shocked when the complainant filed a police complaint before the Chandera Police Station citing that opposite party cheated him. Opposite party presented his side of facts before the police and understanding the real facts, the police complaint was withdrawn. Opposite party denies that he persuaded and led the complainant to believe that the cow was giving 15 litres in the morning and 8 litres in the evening. It is also vehemently denied that the opposite party received Rs.37,500/- as sale price for the cow. The opposite party cannot guarantee the out put of milk by any cow. The petition is false to the knowledge of the petitioner and to gain undue advantage on the opposite party by harassing him.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 to A5 marked. Opposite party’s counsel cross-examined the complainant. Opposite party is examined as DW1. Opposite party was cross-examined by the counsel of complainant. Heard both sides. The main question raised for consideration are:-
4. 1. Whether there is unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party ?
2.If so what is the relief?
Issue No.1:- The complainant, a farmer purchased a lactating cow from opposite party for eking his livelihood. But there is serious dispute regarding the price and lactating capacity of the cow. Complainant produced the insurance certificate. Ext.A5 in which the value of the cow is shown as Rs.35,000/- so we presumes that the actual rate of cow is more than Rs.35,000/-. Usually insured amount will be less than that of the actual amount. Complainant purchased the cow believing the words of opposite party that the cow is delivered 20 days back and its lactation capacity is 15 litres in the morning and 8 litres in the evening. But after purchase the lactation capacity of the cow was 2 litres per day. When the complainant informed about the poor lactation capacity of the cow to opposite party he evaded by one or other reasons. Complainant sent Ext.A1 lawyer notice on 8-7-2013 to opposite party complainant lodged a complaint before the S.H.O.Chandera against opposite party on 28-06-2013. Due to low lactation capacity of the cow, the complainant was constrained to contact Department of Animal Husbandry and Government Veterinary Surgeon, Bedadka who examined the cow and revealed that the cow completed post 5 months delivery and it is ready for semination and issued Ext.A4 and artificial semination was carried out on the same day, 26-06-2013. Complainant being shocked by hearing all these facts sent a lawyer notice to opposite party (which is marked as Ext.A1) calling upon OP to take back the cow and pay Rs.37,500/- being the cost of the cow along with Rs.50,000/- towards loss and damages.
5. DW1 deposed before the Forum that healthy cows will be ready for semination after 2 months of delivery. Even after semination the lactating capacity of good breed cows will not reduce. This is a good breed cow then how the lactating capacity reduced soon? Either due to semination or the lactation period is over. DW1 deposed before the Forum that even after semination lactation capacity will not reduce. We presume that opposite party might have taken the entire lactation period of that cow and thereafter sold. If so, opposite party received double benefit from the cow it is a clear case of unfair trade practice to the complainant saying that the cow is delivered 20 days back and its lactating capacity. Complainant has every right to know the breed, lactation capacity and everything regarding the cow, which he proposes to purchase. But the opposite party mislead him after taking the entire lactation period, sold it for an attractive price. Complainant’s loss and mental agony has to be compensated on the basis of Exts A4 & A5. Complainant is entitled compensation for the unfair trade practice committed by opposite party.
6. The prayer of the complainant is to take back the cow after paying Rs.37,500/- the cost of the cow and maintaining cost. But here the subject matter is a cow, a domestic animal not an electronic item. Therefore it cannot be directed to do so. Considering the circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that the complainant as a farmer is likely to have profit on the subject matter of the case in future. Since as admitted by both parties the cow is about to give birth to a calf in near future. The loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant has to be compensated. Absolutely there is no remote chance for the cow to be get impregnated within subsequently one month of delivery, In this regard, opposite party has misrepresented the complainant and Forum.
Hence the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- with Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.08-07-2013 Copy of lawyer notice.
A2.Postal acknowledgement card
A3 28-06-2013 receipt issued by SHO, Chandera
A4. Cow card
A5. Certificate of Insurance-Gosuraksha Scheme.
PW1. B.Ramachandran Nambiar
DW1.M.Raveendran
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
