By Sri. A.S. Subhagan,  Member:-

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          2. Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant had purchased a conceived   cow from the Opposite Party believing  the words of the Opposite Party that the cow would deliver within 30 days and would  get  15-17  litres of milk while  milking it.  The Opposite Party also stated that it was the second delivery of the cow and the cow had no protest like kicking  etc while milking it.  The purchase price of the cow was Rs.45,000/-  which was paid  by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party had assured  that if  there  was any decrease in getting  15-17,  litres of milk he would take back the cow from the Complainant.  On the basis of the assurance given by the  Opposite Party, eventhough  the Complainant purchased and looked after the cow for about two months,  the cow did not deliver.  It was purchased by the Complainant for his livelihood. 

          3. Due to financial stringency,  the Complainant decided to sell the cow and with the help of  one broker  Sunny,  he sold the cow to one Balachandran for Rs.49,500/-.  The Complainant had intimated all the assurance given by the Opposite Party to Balachandran too.  On the date of purchase of the cow by Balachandran on 05.07.2017  itself the cow had delivered  but  it did not  feed the calf; protested to milk it and started kicking the byreman.  Consequently Balachandran brought a veterinary doctor and  on his examination the doctor told that  one of the nipples of the cow had no hole which might have been caused  in the previous delivery.  As a consequence Balachandran filed  a complaint against  this complainant before this  Commission on 25.07.2017  as CC No.150/2017  in which,  after taking evidence and hearing,  the Commission ordered                     this  Complainant  to  pay  Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees Twenty five thousand only)  as compensation and cost to Balachandran which was paid by this Complainant.  The Complainant says that he had purchased the cow believing the words and assurance given by the  Opposite Party and looked after the cow for about two months.  He was forced to sell the cow as he was not able to earn his livelihood and due to financial crisis.  The Complainant was forced  to suffer a loss of Rs.25,000/-  being the amount paid to Balachandran as compensation   and cost,  not because of his fault but because of the unfair trade practice played upon  the Complainant by the Opposite party.

          4. Hence the Complainant  has approached this  Commission filing this complaint with prayers to order the  Opposite Party :-

1. To compensate the Complainant for the loss caused to him by way of   payment of Rs.25,000/-  as compensation and cost to Balachandran, 

which was ordered by this Commission in  CC No.150/2017  dated 18.01.2018.

2.  To  direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 10,000/-  to the Complainant as compensation.
3.  To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/-  as cost of this complaint to the Complainant and
4. To order such other  relief to the  Complainant as the Commission deems fit.

5.  The Commission registered a case and notice was served  on the Opposite

Party for appearance.  The Opposite Party entered appearance and detailed version was filed.  The allegations of the Complainant are denied by the Opposite Party.  He contents that he  had not given any assurance  regarding the cow;  he had not told that the cow would get 15-17 litres of milk;  the Complainant had  purchased the cow according to his own whims  and fancy;  he had not told the Complainant that it would deliver by 30 days; the cow had no such defects as alleged by the Complainant;  the Opposite Party had intimated the Complainant to  give back the cow to the Opposite Party if  there had been any defects as to the cow;  on the other hand the complainant sold it to Balachandran for making profit.  The Opposite Party is not liable for any loss caused  to the Complainant due to the carelessness  in looking after the cow by the Complainant and Balachandran;  there has been no

unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite party;  the complaint is an experimental one and hence the Complainant has no right to get cost and compensation or any other relief from the Opposite Party.  So the Opposite Party  prays before the Commission to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost of the Opposite Party.

          6.  Affidavits were filed by the Complainant and he was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 to A5 were marked from his side.  PW2 also filed  chief affidavit and he was examined  from the side of the Complainant.  Chief affidavit was filed by the  1^st  Opposite Party and he was examined as OPW1 for himself and for  2^nd Opposite Party.

          7.  On perusing the complaint, version,  affidavits & documents filed and marked,  and the oral evidences adduced by PW1,  PW2 and  OPW1,  the Commission raised the following points for consideration.

1.  Whether there has been any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the  part of the Opposite Party?
2. If so,  whether the Complainant is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the cost of the complaint or other relief as prayed for?

8.  Point No.1:-  It is the admitted fact that the Complainant had purchased

the cow from the  Opposite Party  for Rs.45,000/-   on 02.05.2017.  It is also evident that the Complainant  had sold that cow to Balachandran for Rs.49,500/-.  From Ext.A1 document it is seen that this  Commission had ordered this Complainant to pay  Rs.25,000/-  as compensation and cost to the  Complainant in CC No.150/2017.  The cow  was purchased by the Complainant on 02.05.2017  and as the pregnant cow had not delivered in about two months,  the Complainant sold it to Balachandran.  So the  Complainant had looked after the cow for about two months at his own cost.  Only after looking after the cow for about two months the Complainant had sold it for 49,500/-.   That is,  though there is an increase of  Rs.4,500/-   between the purchase price and selling price of the cow it cannot be presumed that the Complainant had made a profit of Rs.4,500/-  as he had looked after the pregnant cow for about two months at his own cost after purchasing  it.  Another contention  of the Opposite Party is that as the Complainant  had  purchased the cow and as it was sold to Balachandran,  the Complainant had purchased the cow for commercial  purpose.  Purchasing a cow for earning livelihood and selling it after  about two months due to financial stringency cannot be considered to be a transaction for commercial purpose as it is not proved to be on the contrary by the Opposite Party.  Further  PW2 in oral evidence has stated that the cow purchased by the Complainant   was not for commercial purpose.  He has also deposed as to the statement that the cow had not any defect, was false.

9. Ext. A4 is the marked copy of deposition  of  the  Veterinary  Surgeon, (PW2) in CC No.150/2017.  In Chief examination the Veterinary Surgeon  who had treated the cow has deposed that there  was a growth  in the milking  tract between the breast and one of the  nipples of the cow.  This may happen either at the time of stoppage of milking or even in the first delivery.  In cross examination  he has stated that this growth may be seen in the last stage of pregnancy.  Anyway it can be seen that the cow had some defects and on the basis of this,  the Commission found unfair trade practice in CC No.150/2017  on the part of the Complainant in this complaint and was ordered to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as  compensation and cost to Balachandran  who was the Complainant in CC No.150/2017. 

10. Here, the Complainant in this  complaint had purchased the cow from the

Opposite party in this complaint  without knowing the  defects of the cow.  The Opposite Party had not disclosed such facts to the Complainant.  Hence the Complainant was forced to loose Rs.25,000/-  by way of  payment of compensation and cost to Balachandran.  So, there has been unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.  Therefore point  No.1  is proved in favour of the Complainant.

11.  Point No.2:- As point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant,  he

is  entitled to get compensation.

12.  Point No.3:-  As point No. 1 and 2  are in favour of the Complainant he

is entitled to get cost  of the complaint.

In the result the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party  is ordered :-

1.  To pay Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) being the loss caused  to him by paying compensation and cost to Balachandran in CC No.150/2017.

2. To pay Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand only)  as compensation to  the Complainant for  unfair trade practice  and mental agony and
3. To  pay Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the complaint to the  Complainant.

The above amounts shall be paid by the Opposite  Party to the Complainant

within one month from the date   of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant shall have the right to realize the amounts together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of this order,  by due process of law.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Commission on this the 31^st  day of March 2021.

Date of filing:03.05.2018.

                                                                   PRESIDENT:    Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER    :    Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER    :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witnesses for the complainant:

PW1.           Suresh                                      Complainant.

PW2.          P.K. Shaji.                                Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1.        Velayudhan.                                       Coolie                           

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.      Order in CC No.150/2017.                                 dt:18.01.2018.

A2.      True Copy  of Complaint in CC No.150/2017.   dt:22.07.2017.

A3.      True Copy  of  PW1 in  CC No.150/2017.                   dt:12.10.2017.

A4.     True Copy of  PW2 in CC No.150/2017.            dt:27.10.2017.

A5.      True Copy of  Counter Statement in CC No.150/2017.  dt:17.08.2017.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.