BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.1/2009

Between

Complainant : William Thomas,

Nambiaparambil House,

Kaliyar P.O.,

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Thomas Thomas(Appachan)

Kodakkachira House,

Mundanmudy P.O.,

Kallippara.

2. Valsamma Thomas

Kodakkachira House,

Mundanmudy P.O.,

Kallippara.

(Both by Adv: K.J. Thomas)

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

The complainant purchased a milk cow from the opposite party for earning his livehood, for a price of Rs.15,000/-. Before purchase, on 02/10/08 the complainant along with broker went to the home of the opposite party to see the cow and at that time it was represented that the cow would fetch 10 liters of milk and it was believing that the price was fixed. The complainant paid Rs.2,000/- as advance to the opposite party. On 09/10/08 the complainant paid the balance amount Rs.13,000/- and the cow was taken home. When the complainant milked the cow, only 5 liters of milk was received. The fact was intimated to the opposite party. But the opposite party took the stand that it was due to the fault of the complaint that the yield was reduced. So the complainant gave more cattle feed to the cow. Still, there was no increase in the yield. The complainant has sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for a direction to the opposite party to compensate the complainant.

2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is contented that there was no business transaction between the complainant and opposite party. He sold a milk cow to one Mr. Devasia K.C for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. The complainant and other person also came to the residence of the opposite party. There was no false representation regarding the matter. He was not intimated that the cow was giving only lesser quantity of milk. On 28/09/08 the cow calved. The opposite party had milking the cow about 7 days and he was selling 6.400 liters of milk in Kallippara Milk Producers Co-operative Society. The reason for the reduction in the milk may be due to lack of protection, change in the climate etc. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 on the side of the complainant.

5. The POINT:- As PW1 the complainant would state that he gave the price of the cow to the opposite party. But no sale deed was created. The dispute of the complaint is that the complainant did not get the offered quantity of milk from the cow. It is common case that the price of the cow was arrived at basing on the yield at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per liter of milk. Regarding the quantity of milk, according to the complainant he believed and acted upon the representation of the opposite party. On 02/10/08 the complainant along with PW2 & PW3 came to the house of the opposite party to see the cow. The price was fixed and Rs.2,000/- was paid as advance. In the cross examination, PW1 has stated that after 7 days, the balance amount Rs.13,000/- paid and the cow was taken home in a vehicle by PW2 & PW3 who were brokers. PW2 is the neighbour of the opposite party. So the case of the complainant that, the opposite party had misrepresented the quantity of milk, can not be easily believed. Even though it is contented by the complainant that he did not see sample milking, it can not be accepted, because normally it is improbable. A farmer, especially one who purchases a cow for earning daily bread will purchase the cow only after witnessing the sample milking. PW1 to PW3 had sufficient time to witnessing the sample milking. The advance amount Rs.2,000/- paid to the opposite party then after 7 days, the balance amount Rs.13,000/- paid and the cow was taken home. In fact it is the duty of the purchaser to get himself convinced about the yield of the cow before the sale was effected. The quantity of milk of a cow which is a living object may vary due to several reasons such as change in climate, change of cattle shed, change of the person milking, food given and several other things. So the mere reduction in the yield alone cannot be found to be a deficiency on the part of the seller. So the complainant is not entitled for any relief in this case.

In the result, the original petition is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the petitioner.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2009.

 

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - William Thomas

PW2 - Mathew Varghese

PW3 - Devasia

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

nil

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil