By. Smt. Beena. M, President (I/C):

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

                2.  Brief facts of the case are given below:

                The Complainant is a farmer, she had purchased a pregnant cow from the Opposite Party through Mr.Gireesh, Kallody on 03/04/2018 and paid Rs.68,000/-.  At the time of purchase the Opposite Party made believe that the Complainant that it was the second delivery, in the first calving the cow fetched 22-liters of milk and assured 20 liters in the second calving.  The Opposite Party also assured that he will reduced proportionately the price of the cow, if the quantity of milk is less than the assurance given by him. Thereafter, on 06-08-2018 the cow delivered a calf and after that the complainant started milking the cow.  Then the Complainant got only 10 liters of milk per day and she realized that the cow had delivered at least four times before this delivery.  The Opposite party number one had made believe the Complainant that only two deliveries were completed.   Subsequently, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and said the fact, and asked him for a refund of the excess amount he had received.  Due to the uncertainty, the Complaint filed a police complaint against the Opposite Party before the Vellamunda Police Station.  The Opposite Party had undertaken that he would pay Rs.15,000/ - on 15^th  June 2018 and Rs.5,000/- on 30^th  June 2018.  But the Opposite Party did not turn to pay the amount as had assured. The act of the Opposite Party is unfair trade practice.    So the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- compensation and cost.  Hence this Complaint.

3. Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and submitted his version.  Opposite Party No.2 was impleaded as per IA. 140/2020 and Opposite Party No.2 appeared before the Commission, but he failed to file version. Hence the Commission set him as ex parte. The Opposite Party No.1 denied all the allegations made against him by the Complainant.  He submitted that he had not sold the cow to the Complainant for an amount of Rs.68,000/-, whereas the cow was sold to one Gireesh for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, and there was no transaction between the Complainant and the First Opposite Party and he has no connection with the Complaint and so he is an unnecessary party in the proceedings.  There is no cause of action arose against Opposite Party No.1 and no deficiency in service committed by him. So the Complaint has to be dismissed.

4. On perusal of Complaint, version, and documents, the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice/deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?

5. Point No. 1 and 2 :-  For the sake of convenience and brevity both the points are considered together.

            6. The Complainant had adduced oral evidence.  She was examined as PW1 and the document produced was marked as Ext. A1 and the SI in charge was examined as PW2.  The Opposite Party No.1 was examined as OPW1.  Ext. A1 is the copy of complaint register received from police station. On perusal of the Complaint and Ext. A1, it is seen that the Opposite Party on settlement talk had agreed that some amount would be paid back on various dates.  This shows that the Complainant had brought the cow from the Opposite Party.  The only dispute is whether the First Opposite Party is liable to pay or not.  At the time of cross examination the First Opposite Party admitted the signature on the Ext. A1. The First Opposite Party has not produced any evidence to prove that he had sold the cow to the Second Opposite Party.  So, here it is seen that the Second Opposite Party has no role in this deal.  Hence the First Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant with compensation and cost. 

 In the result, the Complaint is allowed and

1. The First Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the Complainant.
2. The First Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards compensation.
3. The First Opposite Party further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) as cost.

The above amounts shall be paid to the Complainant by the first Opposite Party within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19^th day of December 2022.

Date of Filing:-06.10.2018.

PRESIDENT(I/C)      :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1.              Elikutty.                                                         Housewife.

PW2.              Moidu. K.                                                      ASI of Police, Vellamunda.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Joseph.                                                          Driver.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.                  Copy of Complaint Register.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.

PRESIDENT(I/C)      :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.