By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint in brief is as follows.

The Complainant purchased a cow on 21.07.2008 from the 1^st Opposite Party at the price of Rs.11,250/- when the cow was in the brim of calving. The assurance at the time of purchase from the 1^st Opposite Party that in lactation the cow gives 8 liters of milk daily. After 9 days of purchase the cow was calved and more over when the cow was in the possession of the Complainant it was maintained properly giving enough food and cattle feeds. The 2^nd Opposite Party is a mediator, other mediator were also present at the time of purchase. In lactation after calving the cow had given only 3 liters of milk in the morning 1 ½ liters of milk in the evening. The Complainant requested the 1^st Opposite Party either to refund the price given receiving back the cow or to give back the excess amount received. The 1^st Opposite Party was not ready to respond the request instead he was adamant in of his attitude in not giving back to the excess amount received. The Complainant had a loss of Rs.5,000/- , the excess amount received by the 1^st Opposite Party making a false claim on the yielding of milk. The Opposite Party has done an unfair trade practice and more over it is a deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to refund the excess amount of Rs. 5,000/- received from the Complainant along with cost of Rs.500/-.

2. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance and in brief it is as follows. The Opposite Parties had not sold the cow to the Complainant. Whereas the cow was sold to one Raveendran at the price of Rs.9,250/- . There was no transaction in between this Opposite Parties and the Complainant. The sale consideration was only Rs.9,250/- including the advance of Rs.250/-. At the time of purchase one Varghese Pullattukudiyil and the 2^nd Opposite Party were present. There was no assurance from the Opposite Parties that the cow in lactation gives 8 liters per day. It was informed to the Complainant that in the last calving the cow had given 7 to 8 liters of milk per day including lactation in morning and evening. The allegation of the Complainant that the cow gives only 3 liters per day in the morning and 1 ½ liters per evening are nothing but false if any considerable shortage in the yield of milk effected it would be due to improper maintenance of the cow. There is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in the part of the Opposite Party. The complaint is also motivated to injure the status of the 1^st Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.5,000/-.

3. The points in consideration are.

1. Is there any deficiency in service in the transaction between the Opposite Party and the Complainant?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1 and 2:- The Complainant filed affidavit swearing the allegations. No documentary evidence was produced by the Complainant. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and person who was present at the time of purchase is examined as PW2. The price of the cow was Rs.11,250/- and regarding the milk the 1^st Opposite Party assured 8 liters. The Opposite Parties filed affidavit swearing their contentions according to them the cow was sold to one Raveendran and the price of the cow was Rs.9,250/-. According to them in lactation the cow gave 7 to 8 liters. The statement of the milk given in Thariyode Milk Co-operative Society is marked as Ext.B1. However the document produced by the Opposite Party does not tally in total with the contention 7 to 8 liters. The claim of the 1^st Opposite Party that after giving approximate of 5 liters in society to 3 liters of milk were used for their house hold purpose cannot be relied on and no oral testimony was given in that respect. It is testimonied that the value of the cow is based on in the yielding of milk. Accordingly to PW2 the price agreed upon the cow per liter of milk Rs.1,500/-. The case of the 1^st Opposite Party is that in lactation after the last calving for a period of one month including the milk yielded in the morning and evening he got 5 liters of milk apart from milk used for own purpose. Basing on the price agreed upon the value of the cow amount to Rs.10,500/- for a cow of 7 liters of milk. The contention of the 1^st Opposite Party that the cow was sold at the rate of 9,250/- cannot be relied on being the value of a cow per liter is estimated Rs.1,500/-. The 1^st Opposite Party received an excess amount of Rs.750/- from the Complainant which is to be refunded along with cost of this complaint Rs.1,250/-.
 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven hundred and Fifty only) to the Complainant along with the cost and compensation of Rs.1,250/- (Rupees One thousand Two hundred and Fifty only). The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant this amount within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the day of 30^th January 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER-I : Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

PW1. Padmini. Complainant

PW2. Raveendran. Agriculture

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Varghese Coolie

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Nil.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :

B1. Certificate dt. 27.09.2008