IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday, the 31st day of December, 2008
Filed on 11/12/2007
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 240/2007
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Sathyan Sri. Suresh
Chiramodiyil Veedu Kochukaleeckal Veedu
Kodukulanjikarodu Muri Kodukulanjikarodu Muri
Kozhuvalloor P.O. Kozhuvalloor P.O.
Venmoni, Chengannur Venmoni, Chengannur
(By Adv. K.G.Vinodkumar)
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that the complainant on 6th October, 2007 purchased milch cow and a calf for an amount of Rs.16500/-(Rupees sixteen thousand and five hundred only) from the opposite party. At the time of the transaction, the opposite party assured the complainant that it was the 2nd delivery of the said cow and the cow would yield 8 liters of milk in the morning and 5 liters in the evening. But contrary to the assertion by the complainant, the cow is giving only 5 liters and 3 liters of milk in the morning and evening respectively. Consequently, the complainant demanded the opposite party to take back the animal and hand back the cost of the cow. The opposite party was not prepared to comply with the demand of the complainant. The complainant approached many authorities, but of no avail. As a last resort, the complainant approached this Forum seeking relief for his grievance.
2. Notice was sent. The opposite party turned up and filed version. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer. The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant bought the cow after convincing himself as to the quantity of the milk the cow provided. The cow was yielding 13 liters of milk per day. The decline of milk if any was due to the improper and inappropriate maintenance of the animal by the complainant. The opposite party never asserted the age of the cow to the complainant. The complaint is filed with out bonafides. The complaint is only liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complaint as PW1. On the side of the opposite party, the opposite party was examined as RWl and the document Ext. X1 was marked. Ext. X1 is the expert report.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the questions come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?
5. The complainant case is that immediately after the animal was purchased the complainant realized that the cow was not yielding the assured quantity of milk. That apart, he came to know that the cow was more aged than what was apprised of him by the opposite party. He wanted the opposite party to take back the animal on giving back the cost of the cow. The opposite party declined the complainant's demand. We analyzed the materials available on record. Barring bare allegations, no evidence worth a paper is available to bring home the allegations advanced by the complainant. The report of the expert also in no way useful to the complainant. We are of the view that the complainant has been guided by conjectures and surmises rather than reason and prudence. Less said better about the complainant case. We are hardly hesitant to observe that the complainant case must fail.
For the forgoing facts and findings made herein above, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2008.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sathyan (Witness)
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Suresh (Witness)
Ext.X1 - Expert Report
// True Copy //
By Order
To Senior Superintendent
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
