BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.78/2008

Between

Complainant : Jose Devasia,

Parasseril House,

Nayarupara P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv:Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : Varghese Thomas,

Valiyaparambil House,

Mariyapuram P.O,

Thankamany Village,

Idukki District.

(By Adv:Jose Thomas)

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

On 22.10.2007, the complainant Sri.Jose Devasia purchased a cow from Sri.Varghese Thomas, the opposite party for a consideration of Rs.11,000/-. The cow was 6 months pregnant. The cow was sold by the opposite party on the representation that it would fetch 11 litres of milk. The cow was a Swiss Brown breed. The opposite party gave a sale deed to the complainant. But after calving the cow did not give the quantity of milk as promised. The complainant could got only 6 litres of milk per day. At the time of sale, it was agreed upon by the opposite party that if the cow fails to give 11 litres of milk per day he would take back the cow and return the price received and also other expenses if any incurred by the complainant on account of the cow. The fact was intimated to the opposite party, he did not give any favourable answer. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 23.03.2008. The opposite party received the notice, no reply was given by him. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for compensation.
 

2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that he sold a 6 months pregnant cow to the complainant. In the previous calving the opposite party received an average of 10 litres of milk. He never gave an agreement to the complainant regarding the cow deal. He never agreed to take back the cow or to return the price or other expenses to the complainant. 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 the service of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT :- The transaction in question is admitted. The complainant purchased the cow in question at the time when it was 6 months pregnant. According to him it was represented by the opposite party that the cow gave 11 litres of milk per day in the previous calving. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant did not get the offered quantity of milk from the cow. Regarding the quantity of milk, according to the complainant he believed and acted upon the representation of the opposite party. It is common case that the price of the cow was arrived at based on the yield at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per litre of milk. Ext.P1 is the sale deed. In that document the price of the cow was arrived at based on the yield at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per litre of milk. Ext.P2 is the lawyer notice which was accepted by the opposite party. Complainant is examined as PW1. In the cross examination of PW1, he admitted that the Ext.P1 document was written by the complainant itself and signed by the opposite party. The opposite party is examined as DW1. He has stated that he had sold his cow. He and his wife signed a blank paper for the purpose of making receipt for getting loan facility. In cross examination DW1 has stated that he got 11 litres of milk per day in the previous calving. In order to prove the quantity of milk the opposite party has produced Ext.R1, a certificate issued by the Mariyapuram Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam, where the opposite party was supplying the milk. The average quantity supplied during the relevant time was 10.8 litres in the morning and 7.1 litres in the evening. So the case of the complainant that the opposite party had misrepresented the quantity of milk cannot be easily believed. The quantity of milk of a cow which is a living object may vary due to several reasons such as change in the climate, change of cattle shed, change of the person milking, food given and several other things. A cow is a living animal and not a machine. Guarantee or warranty in respect of quantity of milk of cow can in no circumstances be absolute. A person who buys the cow with such conditions, very well known that it is not in the hands of the seller to make the cow yield a particular quantity of milk. He can only vouchsafe the previous performance of the cow. The complainant shall be free to approach a Civil Court for the relief which he sought in the complaint. 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 Consumer Complaint is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the petitioner.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of September, 2008
 

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Jose Parrasery

On the side of Opposite Party :

DW1 - Varghese Thomas

Exhibits

On the side of Complainant

Ext.P1 - Sale Deed

Ext.P2 - Lawyer Notice dated 7.03.2008 issued by the advocate of the complainant

On the side of Opposite party :

Ext.R1 - Certificate dated 10.08.2008 issued by the Secretary, Mariyapuram Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam