By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.  The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-

            The complainant is a cowboy and milk vendor for the last 25 years. He is depending upon the income derived from these sources for the livelihood of his family. He is one of the A class members of Varadoor Ksheerolpadaka Sahaharana Sangham Ltd. No. D 17 (D). He used to sell milk to Annamvayal Depo coming

-2-

under this Sangham. On 10.05.2018, he purchased a pregnant cow from the opposite party for Rs. 58500/- in the presence of one Sunil who is the mediator and one Shaji, believing his assurance that he will get 17 litres of milk per day from this cow. The cow delivered soon after the purchase. But the complainant was not able to get 17 litres of milk from the cow even if, there was proper feeding.  He was able to obtain only 9 litres of milk per day.  Therefore, the  complainant along with Sunil and Shaji contacted the opposite party and explained the situation. But the opposite party threatened and was not ready to take any responsibility. Thus, the opposite party cheated him. Though the complainant gave a complaint to the police, the opposite party there also denied

his responsibility. Thus the complainant filed this complaint to get back the money which he spent, compensation and legal expenses.

3. The opposite party filed version and additional version contenting as follows :- He admitted that he sold the cow to the complainant. But he denied that it is for Rs.58,500/-. It is only for Rs.48,500/-. He denied the alleged assurance from him with regard to the quantity of the milk. He only disclosed the complainant that he was able to get 15 litres of milk per day during the first delivery of the cow. He admitted that the complainant approached him and expressed his inability to get 17 litres of milk. He denied that he threatened him

-3-

and ignored his grievance. He admitted that the complainant filed a complaint before the  police. But he denied that he went away from his responsibility. Hence this complaint is to be dismissed.

4.   On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-

1.  Whether there is any unfair trade practice from the opposite  

    Party?

2.  Reliefs and Cost.                                           

5.  The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, PW2, OPW1, Ext. A1 to A3 and Ext.B1. Heard both sides.

6. Point No.1:-  The grievance of the complainant is that even though he purchased  a cow for Rs. 58,500/- from the opposite party believing his promise that he will get 17 litres of milk per day, he was able to get only 9 litres of milk per day. Thus, according to him, the opposite party cheated him.  His case is that he had purchased the cow with the help of a mediator namely Sunil.  On the other hand, opposite party contented that he never assured anything related to the quantity of the milk.  According to him, he sold the cow to the complainant only for Rs.48,500/- and that he only disclosed that he had obtained 15 litres of milk per day during it’s previous delivery.  PW1 is the complainant. He gave evidence

-4-

in conformity with his  complaint. PW2 is the mediator. He also deposed that the complainant purchased the cow from the opposite party for Rs. 58500/- and opposite party assured that the complainant will get 17 litres of milk. To disprove the case of complainant, opposite party has given evidence as OPW1. He denied the allegation. So even though the complainant alleged that opposite party cheated him, there was no cheating according to the opposite party.

7. Admittedly, the complaint purchased the cow from the opposite party without any written agreement. So, here there is no document to verify whether there was any assurance to the complainant from the opposite party with regard to the quantity of the milk. It is an admitted fact that the complainant approached the  opposite party and discussed about the difficulty in getting such a quantity of milk which the opposite party allegedly offered. So the only point to be considered  here is that whether the complainant purchased the cow from the opposite party believing his assurance that complainant will get 17 litres of milk per day. The complainant has produced A2 series, the milk bills from June to November 2018 received from Varadoor Ksheerolpadaka Sahaharana Sangham which show that the complainant used to sell around 9 litres of milk per day to the society.  Ext.A1 is the receipt which shows that the complainant has given a complaint before Pulpally police alleging deficiency in quantity of milk. OPW1

-5-

deposed that he had obtained 15 litres of milk during the first delivery of the cow. The opposite party has produced Ext.B1 which shows that he had given around 15 litres of milk per day to the Pulpally Ksheerolpadaka Sahaharana Sangham during that period.  As  already stated, PW1 deposed that he obtained only 9 litres of milk per day from the cow even if, the opposite party assured that he will get 17 litres of milk per day.  PW2 has supported the evidence of PW1 with regard to the  assurance given by the opposite party about the quantity of the  milk. PW2 has also deposed that he was informed by PW1 about the deficiency of the milk and he has also accompanied PW1 to discuss about this anomaly with the opposite party. But, PW2 has not deposed that the complainant was able to get only 9 litres of milk per day. So, the evidence of PW2 only supported the case of the complainant to prove the fact that there was deficiency in quantity of the milk. Ext. A2 series show that complainant used to give 9 litres of milk per day to the Sangham. The complainant admitted that he used to take 700 ml milk for his family. So it is evident that he has obtained more than 9 litres of milk per day. So, the case of the complainant that he was able to get only 9 liters milk cannot be accepted as true. But the evidence of PW2 is corroborated with the evidence of PW1 to the extent that opposite party assured 17 liters of milk per day from the cow and the complainant had not obtained this much milk. PW1 and PW2 were cross-examined  in length.  But nothing  has  been  brought  out  to  discredit

-6-

these facts. But, already stated, here absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the complainant had obtained only 9 litres of milk per day. So, the complainant established that opposite party had made an assurance about the quantity of the milk and he had not obtained milk upto that quantity.

8. Even though the complainant’s case is that he had purchased the cow for Rs.58,500/- and as per the case of the opposite party, he had sold his cow to the  complainant only for Rs.48,500/-, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 show that the complainant had purchased the cow for Rs.58,500/-. But, as already found, the complainant failed to establish that he had only obtained 9 litres of milk from the cow.  

9. Therefore, we are unable to come into a conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.58,500/- which he had given to the opposite party.  In this circumstance, the complainant has also not entitled to get the expenses which he allegedly incurred for the feedstuff. But we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get compensation with cost, because the opposite party failed to keep his promise. So there is unfair trade practice. Considering the nature of the allegation, our opinion is that the complainant is entitled to get

-7-

Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of legal expenses. Hence the point No.1 is decided as discussed above.

10. Point No.2:- Since, we found Point No.1 as concluded above, complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost alone.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost towards legal expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of January 2021.

Date of Filing:-06.08.2018.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1.              Sanjeevan. M. K.                                        Agriculture.

-8-

PW2.              Sunil. M. S.                                                   Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

OPW1.          Reji. M. C.                                                     Coolie.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.                  Receipt.                                                         Dt:19.07.2018.

A2(a).                        Milk Bill.                                                        Dt:03.07.2018.

A2(b).                        Milk Bill.                                                        Dt:03.08.2018.

A2(c).             Milk Bill.                                                        Dt:03.09.2018.

A2(d).                        Milk Bill.                                                        Dt:03.10.2018.      

A2(e).                        Milk Bill.                                                        Dt:03.11.2018.      

A2(f).             Milk Bill.                                                        Dt:03.12.2018.

A3.                  Receipt.                                                         Dt:27.11.2018.                                          

Exhibits for the opposite party:-

B1.                  Passbook.

                                                                        PRESIDENT             :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                             Sd/-

     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,

                                                                         CDRC, WAYANAD.