By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the opposite party for the disposal of the cow which was in short of the milk promised at the time of sale.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows: The complainant is the purchaser of a milking cow which was purchased 17 days after calving. The amount as agreed for the purchase was Rs.41,000/- and the assurance of the opposite party that the cow offers 33 liters of milk. The complainant treated the cow well giving all types of cattle feeds even after proper treatment the cow was not in a position to give more than 20 liters of milk. At the time of purchase there were witnesses. There may be an Order directing the opposite party to compensate the complainant Rs.50,000/- along with cost including the excess amount received from the complainant.
3. The opposite party filed version in short it is as follows: The allegation of the complainant that the sale of the cow was with assurance of yielding 33 liters of milk and on milking the cow could give only maximum of 20 liters of milk are nothing but false. The sale of the cow was in presence of witnesses one Santhosh Nellikunnel and another person Roy. Sale was not affected on the first day itself. The complainant along with witnesses came to the residence of this opposite party and they were ready to purchase the cow on examination of its physical features. The cow was milked and quantity of the milk provided by the cow also observed by the purchaser the complainant. The sale amount of the cow was Rs.40,000/-. The complainant himself tested the milk drawn for a thorough analysis to estimate the content of the fat and other readings. The purchase of the cow was fully on satisfaction of the complainant after thorough analysis of the quality of the milk. It is already admitted by the complainant to the agent in the transaction the cow supplies 30 liters of milk. The complainant is an expert to estimate the quality of cow before purchase of a cow. There was thorough observation from the part of the complainant. This opposite party is not entitled to give the complainant cost and compensation.
4. The points that are to be decided:-
1. Is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Points No.1 and 2 :- The evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of the complainant and opposite party. Exts.A1 to A3 are the documents produced. The ora testimony of witnesses for complainant and opposite party are also given out in this case.
6. The case of the complainant is that the sale of cow to the complainant by the opposite party on the assurance of the yielding of 33 liters of milk at the price of Rs.41,000/- is an unfair trade practice since the cow at the most supplies only 20 liters of milk. Ext.A2 document showing that there is no uprise in the supply of milk in the Deepthigiri Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam, Ellumannam to an extent of 30 liters. The complainant is an expert in farming cows. He is the best Ksheera Karshakan in 2009 of the district and Ext.A3 is the certificate issued to him by Animal Husbandry Department. The complainant participated for the Inter state training organized by Centre for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD), New Delhi, and the complainant holds the certificate for it. The complainant is examined as PW1. The complainant in his personal evidence gave out that he is running dairy farm and from his experience he is able to make an estimation of the cow and it is yielding of milk by physical features. The purchase of this cow was 17 days after calving. The complainant admitted milking cow is usually purchased on estimation of yielding of milk. According to the complainant he purchased the cow upon full satisfaction. The complainant on examination further stated that he is an expert in giving treatments to the cows. The complainant admitted that when he purchased the cow from the opposite party he had three cows in total. The complainant cannot be considered as an ordinary man who slipped in to the trap of the opposite party. He used to deliver classes on the nurturing of the cow and how cows are to be maintained.
7. One witness Santhosh was present at the time of sale who is examined as OPW2. This witness evidenced that he acted as an agent or broker to the sale of the cow to the complainant. The complainant maintains a cow farm, used to purchase and sell cows. This witness acted as a broker in the sale and purchase of other cows for the complainant. According to this witness the cow was initially seen and the purchase of the cow was affected on thorough examination even with milking of it. At the time of sale of the cow the complainant was also informed that one teat of the cow was not supplying milk. From the documents produced and personal evidence of the witnesses we are in the opinion that the complainant in this case is an expert in the cattle farming and skilled by experience. The sale of the cow to the complainant cannot be attributed with unfair trade practice. In the absence of cogent evidence that the price given tally with the yielding of milk.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No Order as to cost and Compensation.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 30th March 2012.
Date of Filing:08.12.2011.
