Kerala

Wayanad

CC/163/2013

Jose, S/O Joseph,Kandamthuruthiyil (H),Paadichira P.O - Complainant(s)

Versus

Valsalan,Puthukkudi (H), Amarakkuni P.O Oottikkavala - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2014

ORDER

By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-

The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order directing the opposite party to take back the cow already sold to the complainant by the opposite party and refund Rs.26,500/- being the price of the cow with 12% interest and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

 

2. The complainant's case in brief as follows:- The complainant purchased a cow from the opposite party for a total price of Rs.26,500/- on 27.07.2013. The complainant and his men Mr. Radhakrishnan, Sabu Polakkal, Jose Kuzhuppil were there at the time of purchase. At the time of purchase, the opposite party assured 12 litres of milk from the cow and also informed that after the last delivery, the opposite party got 12 litres of milk from the said cow etc. On believing these words, the complainant purchased the cow for a sum of Rs.26,500/- with calf also. The opposite party directed the complainant to provide 4kg of cattle food per day and sufficient grass to the cow in order to yield 12 litres of milk. On the next day of purchase, when the complainant tried to draw milk, the cow did not allow to draw milk. The complainant some how got only 3 litres of milk on that day. In the evening, the complainant can yield only one and half litres of milk. The said cow did not allow the complainant to yield the milk as per the level assured by the opposite party. The complainant got only below 6 litres of milk per day. The complainant informed this thing to the opposite party on 29.07.2013. The opposite party was not ready to take back the cow and repay the purchase price, so the complainant says that there is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party and unfair trade practice from his side. Aggrieved by this, the complainant preferred this complaint.

 

3. On receipt of complaint, Notice was issued to the opposite party and opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the opposite party admitted the purchase and price of cow. But denied the averment that he had assured 12 litres of milk to the said cow. Moreover, the opposite party stated that he showed the pass book of milk society to the complainant in which the earlier milk supply was shown in detail. The opposite party further states that the complainant after convincing the yield of milk only had purchased the cow. Moreover, the opposite party went to the house of complainant after purchase and showed the yielding of milk from the house of complainant in his presence and stated that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from his side and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

 

 

4. On perusing the complaint, version, affidavit of both parties and documents produced from either side, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party?

2. Relief and Cost.

 

5. Point No.1:- The complainant in addition to the complaint, filed proof affidavit and he is examined as PW1 and produced Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the Certificate given by Veterinary Surgeon. Ext.A2 is the Medical Prescriptions given by Dr. C. Harief and Ext.A3 is the Medical Bill. The case of the complainant is that he got only below 6 litres of milk per day even after maintaining the cow well. Ext.A1 clearly shows that the milk yielding in morning is only 3.5 litres. If the milk yielding is 2 litres after noon, then the total yielding per day will be below 6 litres. The complainant states that the opposite party assured 12 litres of milk per day and cheated him. PW3 is the witness produced by the complainant who had accompanied the complainant at the time of purchase of cow. PW3 categorically stated that at the time of purchase, the opposite party assured 12 litres of milk per day. In the cross-examination of PW3 by the opposite party, nothing is brought out against the complainant. PW2, a Veterinary Surgeon deposed that he had witnessed the yielding of milk from the cow on 05.08.2013 at 6.30 AM and had seen that the production of milk is only 3.5 litres in the morning. As per complaint, Chief affidavit of complainant and as per the deposition of PW1 and PW3, it is categorically stated that the opposite party had assured 12 litres of milk per day. But as per the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the complainant got only below 6 litres of milk per day. The opposite party filed version and chief affidavit and the opposite party is examined as OPW1. The opposite party produced two documents and marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.B2. Ext.B1 is the copy of complaint filed by the complainant before police and Ext.B2 is the pass book. On perusal, it is found that Ext.B1 complaint is lodged much before the instituting of this case before the Forum and in Ext.B1, the complainant alleged that the cow is not allowing him to draw the milk and he sought remedy with the help of police. In the deposition of OPW1, the OPW1 stated that Ext.B1 complaint is closed at police station due to non-co-operation of the complainant. The complainant admitted Ext.B1 document. So Ext.B1 shows that there is some dispute exists between the complainant and opposite party with respect to the yielding of milk. According to opposite party, Ext.B2 is a pass book which shows the supply of milk during the last occasion by yielding milk from the same cow which is sold to the complainant. On perusal of Ext.B2, it shows that the opposite party sold milk in the year 2012 July on wards and the per day supply is 6 litres in average. The case of the opposite party is that he had shown the Ext.B2 document to the complainant before the purchase of cow. But to prove it, opposite party did not produce any witness in this case. But complainant himself stated that the opposite party had assured 12 litres. Moreover, the complainant produced a witness ie PW3 to substantiate his contention. The testimony of PW1 corroborates the testimony of PW3. So by analyzing the entire evidences and documents produced by both the parties, the Forum found that the opposite party had offered 12 litres of milk to the cow but the complainant did not get it. So there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. The value of the cow is Rs.26,500/- and the value will be calculated as per the yielding of milk per day. So the Forum feels that the rate of the cow is fixed by both parties as Rs.2,200/- per litre as the value of the cow. Since there is a meager difference in the yielding of milk from the cow, there no question arises as to take back the cow by the opposite party from the complainant in this case. The opposite party admitted in cross-examination that he was getting 8 litres of milk per day and it is stated in Ext.B2 document. So according to the complainant, there is a shortage of 4 liters of milk per day. The Forum found that the value of milk per litre is Rs.2,200/- is just and proper in this case. So the shortage value will be Rs.2,200/- per litre x 4 litres= Rs.8,800/-. Hence the complainant is entitled to get a refund of Rs.8,800/- being the excess value he had already paid to the opposite party at the time of purchase. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party is proved, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.8,800/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred Only) being the excess value he had received from the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) as cost of this proceedings. The opposite party is directed to pay the said amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole amount thereafter.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June 2014.

Date of Filing:21.08.2013.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

 

 

APPENDIX.

 

Witness for the complainant:

 

PW1. Jose. Complainant.

 

PW2. Dr. Harief. Veterinary Surgeon, Padichira Hospital.

 

PW3. Jose. Panchayath Member, Mullankolly.

 

Witness for the Opposite Party:

 

OPW1. Valsalan. Opposite Party.

 

Exhibits for the complainant:

 

A1. Certificate given by Veterinary Surgeon. Dt:05.08.2013.

 

A2. Medical Prescription. Dt:12.08.2013.

 

A3. Medical Bill. Dt:12.08.2013.

 

Exhibits for the opposite Party.

 

B1. Copy of Police complaint. Dt:30.07.2013.

 

B2. Pass Book.

 

 

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.