Complaint Case No.168/2009

Date of Institution 25-6-2009

Date of Decision 12-11-2009

Harish Kumar son of Sh. Bal Krishan resident of village Batehra, Post Office Barikhmani, , Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P

…Complainant

V/S

Chaman Lal son of Sh. G.R. Thakur Village Dan, Post Office Baggi, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.


…..Opposite party

For the complainant Sh. Noor Ahmad, , Advocate

Opposite party already exparte.

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ORDER.

This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite party .The case of the complainant is that he is a villager and was in need of cow . The opposite party is doing the business of sale and purchase of cows. The complainant contacted the opposite party and visited his house for the purchase of milky cow and on 24-8-2008 purchased a jersey pregnant cow in the sum of Rs.15,000/- The cow was pregnant and delivery of cow took place on 3-9-2008. The complainant alleged that at the time of the purchase of the cow in question he was made to understand that the cow would yield milk more than ten kilograms and upon his assurance the complainant had purchased the same but after delivery the said cow had not yielded milk . The problem was intimated to the opposite party and he visited the house of the complainant early in the morning on 4-9-2008 and tried to yield the milk but failed and assured the complainant that if the cow would not yield milk within one or two days then said cow would be exchanged with another one . The complainant further alleged that the cow had not given milk and opposite party was intimated but he lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other . Upon this complainant asked the opposite party to change the said cow and then the opposite party took back the cow and assured to exchange the cow with new one within one week and in case failed to return the said cow in that event he would pay the consideration amount . The complainant visited the opposite party on 20-9-2008 but the opposite party lingered on the matter with lame excuse that milky cow would be handed over shortly. The complainant further alleged that he visited time and again the opposite party but neither the cow has been given nor amount has been refunded which according to him amounts to deficiency in service. On these facts , the complainant has sought a direction to the opposite party either to hand over the cow or to pay Rs.15,000/- the consideration amount. Apart from this Rs.10,000/- has been claimed as compensation, Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges and Rs.5000/- as costs of the complaint.

2. The opposite party has failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte .

3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case .The case of the complainant is that he purchased a jersey cow from the opposite party in the sum of Rs.15,000/- However, it was noticed by the complainant that the said cow was not yielding milk and he intimated this problem to the opposite party . The complainant asked the opposite party to change the said cow and then the opposite party took back the cow and assured to give another cow but thereafter neither the opposite party exchanged the cow nor refunded the consideration amount . The opposite party has failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte which shows that he has nothing to say in the matter except to admit the claim of the complainant. The complaint is supported with the affidavit of the complainant. Not only this, the complainant has also filed the affidavit of Sh.Vinod Kumar dated 28-10-2009 wherein he had deposed that the cow was carried in his jeep on 24-8-2008 from the house of the opposite party to the house of the complainant and on 8-9-2008 the cow was taken back from the house of the complainant to the cow shed of opposite party. Sh.Vinod Kumar has also deposed in his affidavit that he has charged Rs.500/- from the complainant for the carriage of the cow. . Since the averments made in the complaint are supported with the affidavit of the complainant himself and one witness , there is no reason to disbelieve the same . Hence we hold that the complainant has proved that the opposite party had neither exchanged the cow nor refunded the amount of consideration in the sum of Rs.15,000/- which certainly amounts to deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to refund the consideration amount of Rs.15,000/- to him .

7 In the light of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Apart from this the opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1000 /- on account of compensation for harassment suffered by him and also to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as costs of litigation.

8 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

9 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.