DATE OF FILING: 13.06.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No. 132/2011
Between
Complainant : N.C.Antony,
Block No.1037,
Ramakkalmettu P.O,
Kuruvikkanam,
Kallar – 685 552,
Idukki District.
And
Opposite Party : Vikraman Nair,
Edakkolilkarottu House,
Nedumkandam P.O,
Parivarthanamedu,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Fenil Jose)
O R D E R
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
The complainant purchased a cow from the opposite party on 21.02.2011 for Rs.19,500/-. At the time of purchase the opposite party assured that the cow will delivered within 20 days. The opposite party offered 10 litres of milk in the morning and 5 litres in the evening. The broker who engaged in the transaction also agreed 15 litres of milk. The delivery was on 2.04.2011, but the agreed quantity of milk is not yielded, the two pap of breast is not properly functioned. The complainant stated that he had received only 9 litres of milk, 6 litres in the morning and 3 in the evening. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite party. The opposite party and the broker came to the complainant's house and took back the cow and agreed to give the received amount. But the opposite party did not return the amount to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this petition before the Forum. Complainant sought the remedy to get his money with cost and compensation.
2. The opposite party filed written version. In the version, the opposite party stated that the opposite party bought this cow from Tamil Nadu in 2009 and they looked after the cattle properly and the offered milk they already got. When the cow was under their custody no defect or disease is noted in the nipple of the cow. Moreover, the opposite party stated that the transaction was carried down between the opposite party and one Mr.Sivaraman. When the complainant informed the matter to the opposite party, the opposite party with Sivaraman went to the complainant's house. At that time only the
opposite party understood that the cow was bought by the complainant. The opposite party was very familiar with Mr.Sivaraman, he thought that the cow is for him only. Because of the marriage of the opposite party's daughter he was ready to sell the cow. The opposite party stated that regarding the dispute the complainant had given a police complaint and for which the opposite party was present at the station and explained his own innocence before the S.I of police. The opposite party submitted that no deficiency of service happened in the part of the opposite party. The opposite party denied the point that the cow was taken by the opposite party from the complainant's home.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Ext.P1 marked on the side of the complainant.
5. The POINT :- The complainant examined as PW1. One witness also examined as PW2. PW1 and PW2 were cross examined by the opposite party's counsel. No oral evidence produced by the opposite party. Ext.P1 is the receipt of the police complaint. Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner has not availed the agreed quantity of milk. No other dispute is recorded in the Ext.P1 document. Complainant has not produced any document to show the price of the cow. So we think that no deficiency of service is proved against the opposite party.
Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2011
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - C.C.Antony
PW2 - Sivaraman Nair
On the side of Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Receipt of the police complaint dated 12.06.2011 issued
by the S.I of Police, Nedumkandam
On the side of Opposite Party :
Nil
