D.o.F:7/12/2010
D.o.O:28/2/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO. 261/10
Dated this, the 28th day of February 2011
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Bhaskaran.K, S/o N.K.Kannan,
Kondotti House, Karndalam PO, : Complainant
Nileshwar.
(in person)
Vazakkodan Krishnan
Karndalam House, Karndalam PO, : Opposite party
Nileshwar.
(in person)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
Complainant purchased a cow with one month old calf from opposite party by fixing a consideration of ` 16500/- on the assurance that the cow will milch 7 litres of milk in the morning and 3 litres in the evening every day.
He paid `14000/- towards the purchase price in two instalments. Though he looked after the cow and calf for 2 months not a single day the cow milched 10 litres of milk and the average quantity of milk obtained was 3.5 to 4.5 liters in the morning and 1.2 to 1.8 liters in the evening. Hence he informed this matter to opposite party and asked to take back the cow and return the money. But instead of refunding the amount the opposite party filed a petition before SHO Nileshwar alleging that the complainant is not paying the balance ` 2500/-. Therefore the complaint claiming a compensation of ` 30,000/-.
Opposite party appeared through her daughter as authorized representative and filed version. According to opposite party the complainant paid only ` 14000/- towards the purchase price of cow. But when demanded the balance over phone complainant threatened using filthy language. Hence she filed a complaint before the SHO Nileshwar and from the Police station complainant agreed to pay the balance on 24/12/2010. But later complainant did not pay the amount.
The complainant adduced evidence through his brother as authorized representative. Exts.A1&A2 marked. Ext.A1 is the authorization letter and Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the petition filed by the opposite party’s daughter before the police.
Complainant’s brother has deposed that the cow purchased from the opposite party never milched 10 liters of milk a single day. He deposed that on enquiry made by him it is came to his knowledge that prior to selling the cow to the complainant opposite party sold the cow to one Narayanan for ` 13500/- and since he also did not get sufficient quantity of milk as promised he returned the same to opposite party. PW1 further deposed that he has not paid balance ` 2500/- to opposite party because the cow did not provide the milk as assured and he is ready to pay the balance if the cow milch the quantity offered.
It is pertinent to note that the version is silent about the allegations of the complainant regarding the quantity of milk assured. Therefore it is clear that the allegations of the complainant is true. The act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice.
The complainant is therefore allowed and opposite party is directed to take back the cow and the calf and refund ` 14000/- that he received towards the consideration together with a compensation of ` 3000/- and a cost of ` 2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which ` 14000/- will carry interest @12% from the date of complaint till payment.
Exts;
A1-authorisation letter
A2- photocopy of the petition filed by the opposite party’s daughter before the police.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
