IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 28th day of February, 2018.
Filed on 14/07/2017
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.191/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt.Thilakamma Asokan 1. Smt.Valsala Vijayan
Thilaka Nivas, Menassery,
Cherthala Thekku panchayath, Pattanakkadu P.O,
Cherthala, Cherthala,
Alappuzha. Alappuzha.
( By Adv. V.Deepak )
ORDER
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in precise is as follows:-
The complainant case is that the complainant and her family eke out a livelihood by rearing cow and selling its milk. The complainant on 8th June 2017 purchased a cow from the opposite party. The complainant purchased the said cow on the inducement and insistence of the opposite party. The opposite party apprised of the complainant that the material cow is one of the milkiest cows which gave 9 liters of milk per day. The complainant purchased the cow for an amount of Rs.40000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). Thereafter, to the disappointment of the complainant, the complainant realized that the cow was providing more or less 5.5 liters of milk. The complainant fed the cow with sufficient fodder. Strangely still the availability of milk was fairly lesser. The opposite party caused mental and monetary woes to the complainant, the complainant contends. The complainant on being aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
On notices being sent, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant purchased the cow after having convinced herself as to the particulars of the cow. The complainant purchased the cow for an amount of Rs.40000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). But only an amount of Rs.35000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) was paid to the opposite party. When the opposite party demanded the balance amount the complainant got enraged, and resultantly filed the instant complaint to evade the payment of the same. According to the opposite party the volume of milk comes down on several counts namely when cows are brought over to unfamiliar sheds. The quantity of milk also goes down when they are not properly fed. According to the opposite party the decline on the quantity of the milk was the result of not providing proper care to the cow. The complainant has filed this complaint only to evade payment of balance amount due to the opposite party.As such the complaint is without any bonafides, and only to be dismissed, the opposite party contends.
The complainant was examined as PW1, and the document Exbt A1 was marked. Further on the complainant side one witness was examined as PW2. The opposite party was examined as RW1.
Taking into account the complainant’s contention, the questions that crop up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
Concededly the complainant has purchased a cow from the opposite party. The crux of the complaint as it does appear is that the opposite party gave false promise as to the productivity of the material cow. The opposite party intentionally misinformed the complainant regarding the quantity of the cow’s milk. To substantiate the complainant’s case, the complainant produced Exts. A1 receipt of the complaint she lodged before Arthungal police station. The opposite party contends that the quantity of milk went down for the cow has not been provided proper care. The complainant asserts that the animal was being looked after with proper attention, and the same was being fed sufficiently. PW2 who played the mediator’s role seemingly substantiates both these points put forth by the complainant. Thus on an examination of the entire materials it does seem that the case advanced by the complainant is more probable. At this point we are of the considered view that the opposite party has miserably failed to disprove the complainant’s otherwise trustworthy contention. As has been observed supra, the case put forth by the complainant seems inevitably probable, and worthy of acceptance. Needless to say the complainant is entitled to relief.
For the forgoing facts and findings of the present case herein above, the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of this order.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost or compensation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this 28th day of February 2018.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Thilakamma Asokan (Witness)
PW2 - Prakasan (Witness)
Ext A1 - Receipt, Dtd on 11-07-2017
Evidence of the opposite party :-
RW1 - Valsala Vijayan (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
