KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:107/2007 JUDGMENT DATED.5..4..2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER George Varghese, S/o Kunjoonju, Parackal House, Thokkupara.P.O, : APPELLANT Ambazhchal, Vellathooval, Idukki. (By Adv: Smt.Preetha Vasudev) V. Thameskutty, S/o Joseph, Maliyekkal House, Anaviratty.P.O, : RESPONDENT Vellathooval, Idukki. (By Adv: Sri.Nizar) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC:169/2006 in the file of CDRF, Idukki and under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost. It is also provided that if the amount is not paid within 30 days the same would carry interest at 12% from the date of default. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a milch goat with two kids for a sum of Rs.4000/- on the representation of the opposite party that the goat would fetch 1.5 litres milk per day. On 9..8..2008 he purchased the goat but it was found that the yield was only 1.5 glass of milk. So that the complainant returned the goat to the opposite party and demanded back the money. He was assured that the amount will be paid within 15 days but no payment was made. Hence he has claimed for the return of the amount and cost of Rs.2000/-. 3. On the other hand the opposite party has contended that there was no transaction directly between him and the complainant and that he sold the goat and two kids to one Thampi, a broker for a consideration of Rs.3,650/-. According to him he did not take back the goat and the same was taken back by the broker himself. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the complainant, DW1 the opposite party and DW2 a witness. 5. On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the matter the Forum has found that the evidence of PW1 the complainant is trustworthy and credible and allowed the complaint. On a perusal of the evidence adduced we find that no interference is called for. No patent illegality in the order of the Forum could be pointed out. It has to be noted that it was the Forum that had the opportunity to asses the demeanor of the witnesses. DW2 is another broker. His evidence was not believed by the Forum. In the circumstances we find that there is nothing to disturb the findings of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
