KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO..577/04 JUDGMENT DATED.30.8.08 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER Sri.Chellappan Chettiyar, Chakkalaparambu, P.O.Muthamma. -- APPELLANT (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura) Vs. T.K.Bhuvanachandran, Thottathuseril veedu, Muhamma P.O. -- RESPONDENT Alappuzha. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order of the CDRF, Alappuzha in the complaint in OP.No.A.41/02. The said complaint was filed on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in selling the cow for a sum of Rs.11,000/- on 18.12.2001 by giving assurance that the said cow will give 8 litres of milk per day. But latter it was found that the said cow used to give 4 - 4 ½ litres of milk per day. The opposite party totally denied the transactions. He contended that he did not sell any cow to the complainant. But the forum below on an appreciation of evidence on record found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in making the complainant to believe that the cow would give 8 litres of milk every day. Thereby, the opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.300/-. Hence the present appeal by the opposite party. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party. He submitted his arguments based on the ground urge in the memorandum of the present appeal. He requested for setting aside the impugned order dated.1.6.04 passed by the forum below. There was no representation for the Respondent/complainant. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the alleged transaction entered into between the appellant/opposite party and respondent/complainant can be believed? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the forum below? POINTS 1 & 2 The case of the complainant has been deposed by PW1. His evidence is supported by the oral version of the PW2. The complainant could identify the opposite party as the person from whom he purchased the cow on a sale consideration of Rs.11000/- on 18.12.2001. The service of the notice and acceptance of the same by the opposite party would give an indication that the case regarding purchase of the cow by the complainant from the opposite is acceptable. The forum below had the opportunity to witness the demeanour of the complainant and the opposite party. Thus, the forum below has appreciated the oral evidence in its correct perspective. We do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the forum below regarding the identity of the opposite party as the person who sold the cow to the complainant. The complainant as PW1 has categorically deposed that he purchased the said cow from the opposite party and that the opposite party had given the assurance that the cow will be giving 8 litres of milk every day. It is also deposed by PW1 that after the purchase he could take 4 – 4 ½ litres of milk only per day. The aforesaid evidence of the complainant stands un-challenged. The evidence on record is sufficient enough to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in effecting the sale of the cow to the complainant. The forum below has only ordered compensation of Rs.5000/-. The complainant purchased the cow on a sale consideration of Rs.11000/- on the bonafide belief that the cow will give 8 litres of milk per day. But in fat the cow used to give only 4 to 4 ½ litres of milk. If that be so, the said cow would fetch the market value of Rs.5000 to 6000/- only. The opposite party is bound to refund the said sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. So, the amount of compensation ordered by the forum below is quite reasonable. We do not find any ground to interfere with impugned order passed by the forum below. The present appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order is confirmed. The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER S/L
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN | | 
