By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for the shortage of milk as assured at the time of purchase of the cow.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant purchased a cow from the Opposite Party on 15.11.2011 before calving paying Rs.23,000/-, 5 days after the purchase of the cow it was calved. The Opposite Party assured the Complainant that it provides 14 litre of milk earlier. Whereas the Complainant could experience that in milking it provides only 4 ½ litre of milk. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party that the cow provides only 4 ½ litre of milk and it is against the assurance of the Opposite Party. The Complainant demanded the Opposite Party to take back the cow and refund the amount given as the cost of the cow. The Opposite Party was not ready to take back the cow and to return the amount received. The Opposite Party received excess and exorbitant amount of Rs.23,000/- as the value of the cow that provides only 4 ½ litre of milk. This is an unfair trade practice it is to be compensated with cost.
3. Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The Opposite Party admitted the sale of the cow to the Complainant at the price of Rs.23,000/-. The Complainant was knowing the cow and its genetical quality and she had good appreciation on the quality and yielding of milk. The sale was absolutely based on the consent and connivance of the Complainant. Before calving, the cow was sold to the Complainant when it was conceived of 8 months. The Opposite Party informed the Complainant that he had received 10 litre of milk in the earlier period and the sale was confirmed according to the terms said by the Opposite Party. The Complainant was also given for verification documents related to the supply of milk in the Milk Society.
4. The allegation of the Complainant that she could draw only 4 ½ litre of milk after the delivery is absolutely false. There was no assurance by the Opposite Party that if any shortage in milk the cow would be taken back. There was no mediators or brokers in the sale of the cow to the Complainant, complaint itself is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed with cost.
5. Points that are to be decided:
1. Whether any unfair trade practice is there in the sale of the cow to the
Complainant.
2. Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of Complainant, Ext.A1 and B1 are the documents produced. The personal evidence of a witness who is examined as PW2 is also considered in this case. The dipsute in issue is in respect of the sale of a cow which was not giving milk as assured by the Opposite Party in the sale of the cow to the Complainant. Rs.23,000/- is the amount received by the Opposite Party as the value of the cow. According to the Opposite Party his assurance at the time of sale of cow was that it would give 10 liters of milk. Ext.A1 is the pass book given to the Complainant by Vakery Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam. On perusal of this documents including the quantity of milk provided in morning and evening does not come to 5 litre. Ext.B1 is the pass book produced by the Opposite Party this documents also does not substantiate the contention of the Opposite Party that the cow was giving the quantity of milk assured at the time of sale. The Opposite Party sold cow to the Complainant admittedly at the price of Rs.23,000/- whereas quantity of milk provided is not compatible with the value of the cow given to the Complainant. It is an unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party stated that he had received 10 litre of milk in the earlier calving. The witness of the Complainant is examined as PW2 it is deposed by PW2 that at the time of sale he was also present there and the cow was purchased from the Opposite Party for Rs.23,000/- whereas the cow provided 4 ½ litre of milk every day.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to take back the cow and to refund Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the Complainant. There is no order as to cost and compensation. This is to be complied by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 23rd June 2012.
Date of filing:22.02.2012.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/ Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witnesses for the Complainant:
PW1. Sukumari. Complainant.
PW2. Sabu. Agriculture.
Witnesses for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibit for the Complainant:
A1. Pass Book. dt:05.12.2011.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
B1. Pass Book. dt:11.09.2010.
