Date of filing : 12-10-2009 Date of order : 17 -08-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 221/09 Dated this, the 17th day of August 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER K.P.Thomas, S/o.K.J. Philip, Kayyalaprambil, Karimundakayyam, East Eleri Village, } Complainant Po.Mandapam, Via. Nileshwar. (In Person) Thomas Arakkal, W/o. Varki, Arakkal, Kadumeni, } Opposite party East Eleri Village, Po. Kadumeni, Cherupuzha.Via. (Adv.M.A. Johnson, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT In nutshell the case of complainant is as follows: Complainant had purchased a cow on 20-07-2009 for `13,000/- from opposite party on the assurance that it will milch 13 litres of milk daily after delivery. It was delivered on 20-08-2009. On 24-08-2009 when complainant attempted to milch the cow, it kicked and also declined to feed it’s calf. Thereafter C.D. Jose, the veterinary surgeon of Chittarical Veterinary Hospital examined the cow and told that the forequarter of right side udder was fibrosed during its previous delivery and issued him a certificate. Later when informed opposite party he instructed the complainant to return the cow and calf. On 25-8-2009 complainant returned the cow and calf in a Tempo goods vehicle. Subsequently though opposite party assigned the cow and calf to a third party, he did not refund the amount due to complainant. Hence complainant lodged a complaint before the Chittarikkal Police. But they directed do settle the matter through mediation. But in the mediation talk opposite party refused to repay the amount to complainant. Hence the complaint claiming a compensation of `24,300/-. 2. Opposite party appeared and filed his version. According to opposite party complainant is a cattle broker and his purpose of purchase of cow is resale. Hence complainant is not a consumer. Further complainant ought to have examined the flaws or disabilities of the cow before its purchase. But he failed to do so for which opposite party is not liable. Further complainant also did not take sufficient care, and no kind of supervision of veterinary doctor was given to the cow at the time of it’s delivery. That was the primal cause of resistance of the cow when the complainant attempted to milch the cow and tried to breast feed the calf 4 days after delivery. The complaint is therefore failed to render the necessary services to the cow immediately after it’s delivery. The new born calf should have feeded within one hour from the time of delivery and necessary post natal services like emptying the udders, using disinfectant lotions to prevent bacterial infection to udders etc should have been done to the said Jersey, hybrid cow. Due to the lack of these post natal treatments the health condition of the cow became very weak and on 28-9-09 complainant brought the cow to the adjacent property of opposite party and fastened it in that property and threated the wife of the complainant that he want his money back within 2 days. When opposite party came home he could see that due to lack of post natal treatment the health of the cow was deteriorated and therefore he constrained to sell the cow and calf to a butcher at a throw away price `2600/-. The Chittarikkal Police closed the petition filed by the complainant without any action. Complainant is not entitled for any relief. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant examined as PW1. Ext.A1 marked. Opposite party filed proof affidavit. Both sides heard. Document perused. 4. As alleged by the complainant Ext.A1 certificate dated 24-8-2009 nowhere states that the udder of the cow was shrunk due to martitis during its previous delivery. But it only states that the udder was fibrosed and out of milk and as the udder was fibrosed and the infection had subsided no treatment was done. From Ext.A1 it appears that the animal was infected with martitis only a few days back and at the time of examination by the doctor the infection was subsided. Therefore it appears that there was lack of post natal care to the cow and that caused the health of cow deteriorated. To which no fault can be attributed upon opposite party. 5. But the case of opposite party is that he had sold the cow and calf for `2,600/- to a third party. The complainant could not prove that the cow was sold for more than the said amount stated by opposite party. Hence complainant is entitled to get back that amount. But it is pertinent to note that even for getting that amount which is legitimately due to him he constrained to approach the Forum. Therefore he is entitled for compensation also. In the result complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay `2,600/- to the complainant with a compensation of `3,500/- and a cost of `2,000/- from the date of complaint. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which `2,600/- will carry interest is @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Treatment certificate issued by Dr.C.D. Jose, Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Dispensary, Chittarikkal. PW1. K.P. Thomas Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
