KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL 708/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 13.11.09 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. Musthafa(Muthu), : APPELLANTS Kithrathil House, Mulavoor-P.O., Mulavoor, Pallippadi, Ernakulam District. 2.V.T.Johnson, Varanattu House, Udumpannoor.P.O., Amayapra, Idukki. (By Adv.K.R.Haridas) vs. Sajeev.C.K., : RESPONDENT Chakravelil House, Thadiyampadu.P.O., Idukki 685602. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Idukki in the file of OP.96/05 dated 6.10.05. The appellants are the opposite parties who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the Forum below. The brief of the case is that the complainant accompanied with one C.P.Abraham his neighbour and who is the complainant in OP.98/05 went to the 2nd opposite party, who is a relative of Abraham for the purpose of purchasing one cow each for them. The 2nd opposite party summoned the 3rd opposite party who was a cow broker and both of them took the complainant and Abraham to the house of the 1st opposite party, who is engaged in the purchase and sale of cattle, the complainant purchased a cow for a consideration of Rs.750/- believing that the representation of the opposite parties that it would give 7 liters of milk in the morning and 3 ½ liters of milk in the evening and it was only 12 days since it was calves. Rs.500/- was given as a broker fee to opposite parties 2 and 3 and on the same day the cow was taken in a mini lorry along with the cow which was purchased by Abraham. But when the cow was brought in home, it did not give more than 3 ½ liters of milk in the morning and 2 ½ liters in the evening. The opposite parties were willfully deceiving the complainant. Thus the complainant had demanded back Rs.3750/- collected in excess, the opposite parties have not paid the same. Therefore the present complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties for refund of the excess amount with compensation and costs. The 2nd opposite party filed the written version and contended that the complainant has not a consumer of the 2nd opposite party since he had neither hired any service nor purchasing anything from the 2nd opposite party. It is admitted that Mr.C.P.Abraham the neighbour of the complainant is the first cousin of the 2nd opposite party. Mr.Abraham telephoned to the 2nd opposite party, many occasions during April 2005 and sought help for purchasing cow. The said Abraham came with the complainant and requested to introduce some brokers who deal with cows and on 23.4.05 the 2nd opposite party introduced the 3rd opposite party to the complainant and his relative Abraham. The 3rd opposite party informed them that the cow is available with the 1st opposite party. Due to the pressure of Mr.Abraham 2nd opposite party also accompanied with to the 1st opposite party. The complainant and Abraham along with 3rd opposite party did the business deal with 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party had insisted Mr.Abraham not to purchase the cow without seeing the milking. But Mr.Abraham and the complainant had informed that they were searching for a cow for weeks together and traveled all the way of the house of the 1st opposite party and therefore they have decided to purchase the cow. The 2nd opposite party was not an intermediary in the cow deal and he happened to accompany them only due to the pressure of his relative Abraham. He has not an agent or broker of the 1st opposite party and never talked anything in the deal. After the purchase the complainant did not inform anything to the 2nd opposite party regarding quantum of milk yielded by the cow. Since the cow is a living animal, nobody can predict quantum of milk which may be yielded in future and quantum of milk depends on several factors like food, fodder, drink, love and care, cattle shed, method of milking etc. It is learnt that in this case, the cow was brought in a mini lorry without proper care and caution. The 2nd opposite party is not liable to answer any claim of the complainant. The complainant who examined as PW1 and for opposite party, Johnson also examined as DW1. No documents were adduced and marked from both sides. Forum below found that the opposite party is responsible for the deficiency in service and he has also found to compensate the complainant adequately. Forum below believed the words of the complainant(PW1). The claim of the complainant for the price of the milk basing on the deficiency in quantity of milk which he has estimated to be Rs.3750/- This claim appears to be reasonable. In the result the Forum below directed 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3750/- within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.. The appellant/opposite party prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. Heard both sides and this Commission appreciated the oral evidence adduced by the parties in this case. The main contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that nobody can give any guaranty about the future availability of milk of any cow. The counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the finding of the Forum below is not accordance with the provision of law and evidence and it is not legally sustainable. This commission is seeing that in the ordinary practice the people are accepting the gentlemanly promise in the sale and purchase of cow, goat and other domestic animals. There is no practice in our state to maintain pedigree certificate for the cows and goat etc. This Commission is not having any hesitation to accept the view taken by the Forum below in this case. In the conventional law and customs in our state there are some understandings or misunderstandings about the quality of domestic animals especially cows. The colour, organs, tail, leg, ear, horn, breast size of nipples are dependable facts for the yielding of milk. There is a proverb in Malayalam language that, The order passed by the Forum below is strictly accordance with law and evidence and it legally sustainable. In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
