IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.238/2011 (Filed on 12.12.2011)
Between:
Kamalasanan,
Chooravelil veedu,
Nellickappara. P.O.,
Kokkathodu, Aruvappulam,
Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta - 689 691.
(By Adv. Shilu Muraleedharan) ….. Complainant
And:
Sasi,
Aneesha Bhavan,
Orippurathu,
Keerukuzhi, Pandalam,
Pathanamthitta – 689 502. ….. Opposite party.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for granting a relief from the Forum.
2. Complainant is a farmer by profession and who is lively by the earnings from cattles. The complainant’s case is brief is that he purchased two cattles from the opposite party on 24.06.2011 for ` 1 lakh. At the time of purchasing the cattles, opposite party misrepresented the complainant that the red coloured cow will give 24 litres milk per day and black coloured cow will give 16 litres milk per day at any climatic conditions. Believing this complainant purchased the cattles from opposite party’s farm.
3. Even though the complainant gave maximum care and protection to the cattles he gets only half of the milk as against the assurance of the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party for getting the price of the cattles. Opposite party did not care the complainant’s demand. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party willfully cheated him. Hence the complainant suffered loss and mental agony. On 19.10.2011, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party demanding to return the price of the cattles. But the notice was refused by the opposite party, which was returned. The above said act of cheating of the opposite party is a deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay the price of the cattles along with compensation of `
1 lakh and cost of this proceedings.
4. In this case, opposite party has not turned up and hence he is declared as exparte.
5. On the basis of the allegation in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.A1 to A3. After closure of evidence, the complainant was heard.
7. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that he had purchased two cows from the opposite party by paying ` 1 lakh. At the time of purchase, opposite party assured that the said cows will give 40 litres of milk per day. Though the complainant gave proper care and attention to the cow, he got only less than 50% of the milk from the cows as against the assurance of the opposite party. So the complainant approached the opposite party for redressing his grievance which was denied by the opposite party and finally an advocate notice was also issued by the opposite party, which was not accepted by the opposite party. Because of the above said act of the opposite party, complainant was put to financial loss and mental agony. Opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same and the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant and one witness for the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and 3 documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the undelivered advocate notice issued by the complainant in the name of the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the advocate notice contained in Ext. A1. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt of Ext.A1.
9. From the available evidence, it is seen that the complainant was cheated by the opposite party. Since the opposite party is exparte, the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. Therefore, this complaint can be allowed with certain modifications: However, the complainant had not adduced any evidence for substantiating the claim for compensation of ` 10,000. Therefore, the prayer for compensation could not be allowed as prayed for.
10. In the result, this complaint is allowed with modifications, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of `1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant being the price of the cows along with compensation of ` 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount from the opposite party with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount. Further the complainant is directed to return the cows to the opposite party on getting the amount from the opposite party as ordered by this Forum.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 6th day of March, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Kamalasanan. C.V
PW2 : Achenkunju
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Undelivered returned cover sent by the complainant to the
opposite party.
A2 : Photocopy of the Advocate Notice dated 19.10.2011 issued by the
complainant to the opposite party.
A3 : Postal receipt of Ext.A1.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Kamalasanan, Chooravelil veedu, Nellickappara. P.O.,
Kokkathodu, Aruvappulam, Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta - 689 691.
(2) Sasi, Aneesha Bhavan, Orippurathu, Keerukuzhi, Pandalam,
Pathanamthitta – 689 502.
(3) The Stock File.
