SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)<br /> <br /> On 8.11.2006 the complainant Sri.Raveendran purchased a milch cow from Sri.Santhosh, the opposite party for a consideration of Rs.8,500/-. It was promised by the opposite party that the cow was yielding 6.800 litres of milk in the morning and 3.500 litres of milk in the evening and it was on that basis that the cow was purchased. Though the cow was brought to the house of the complainant and protected properly, he received only 5 litres of milk in the morning and 2 litres of milk in the evening. After two weeks the yield was reduced to 4 litres of milk in the morning and 2 litres of milk in the evening. The fact was informed to the opposite party. He did not give any favourable answer. On 28.11.2006the complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party and no reply was received. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for a direction to the opposite party to return the consideration or to compensate the complainant. <br /> <br /> 2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, the sale of the cow for Rs.8,500/- is admitted. The yield of the cow was convinced by the complainant after witnessing sample milking. The milk was measured and found it was 3.5 litres of milk in the afternoon milking. There was no dispute regarding the quantum of milk received at that time. The opposite party admitted that he got the registered notice. Within 5 days the opposite party met the complainant and advised him that the quantity of milk of a cow depends on several circumstances and it is not possible to predict precisely. There was no difficulty for the complainant to see the morning milking. The complainant is not entitled for any relief.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- The transaction in question is admitted. According to the complainant it was represented by the opposite party that the cow in question was giving 6.800 litres of milk in the morning and 3.500 litres of milk in the evening. On 8.11.2006 the complainant along with PW2(the broker) came to the house of the opposite party to see the cow and about mid-day the opposite party milked the cow and about 2 litres of milk was obtained. He was told by the opposite party that if better feed is given more milk will be obtained and it will give 6.800 litres in the morning and 3.500 litres in the evening. It is on the basis of the representation and the witnessing of sample milking that the price was agreed upon. The opposite party has stated that he had sold his cow fixing <br /> Rs.8,500/- as its price. From the evidence of PW1 itself, it is clear that the cow was purchased after witnessing sample milking and also agreeing to the price. Now the complaint of the complainant is that the quantity of milk obtained is far below his expectation. One witness was examined on the side of the opposite party as DW1, who is the neighbour of the opposite party. DW1 stated that he was supplying the milk of the opposite party. The quantity supplied during the relevant time was 6.200 litres in the morning. He has no direct knowledge regarding the milking. He also stated that he is not aware that how many cows were owned by the opposite party at that time. In a case like this, it is very difficult to find deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The quantity of milk of a cow which is a living object may vary due to several reasons such as change in climate, change of cattle shed, change of the person milking, food given and several other things. Ext.P1 document is the registered notice which was accepted by the opposite party. But even after this the opposite party did not pay the amount or sent any reply to the complainant. So from the evidence of the complainant it is clear that his grievance regarding the cow was not settled. Having regard to these matters and the serious deficiency on the part of the opposite party he should have return the excess price Rs.1,500/-. In the circumstances we fix Rs.1,000/- as compensation including the cost of this petition.<br /> <br /> In the result, the opposite party is directed to repay an amount of Rs.1,500/-, the excess price to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- by way of cost of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest per annum for the date of default. <br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2008<br /> <br />