Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 203
Instituted on : 12.04.2023
Decided on : 19.06.2023
Vipin Suhag age 29 years, s/o Sh. Virender Singh, Gali no.2, Asthal Bohar, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
Shishpal Dairy Farm Village Kameenpura 27-F District Sh. Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan.
..…….……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite party exarte.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had seen a video on the Youtube channel “Farm Talk” on dated 27.03.2023 which was made on 21.03.2023 on “Shishpal Dairy Farm” i.e. opposite party. On this channel videos are made on different dairy farms regarding the sale of cows. The details of cows, Farm operators and phone numbers are also available on the alleged channel. Complainant selected one cow on this channel and contacted the operator Sheeshpal. He told the complainant that the cow was giving 13 liter milk, 20 days yean, having a calf and was healthy. They agreed for Rs.35000/- for cow and Rs.5200/- as transport charges. Complainant made an advance payment of Rs.2000/- on dated 27.03.2023 through Phonepay UPI and the remaining payment on dated 29.03.2023 in account no.50200053457622. Opposite party sent the cow at 11.00p.m. and after seeing the cow, complainant came to know that the cow was not looking as shown in the video. The complainant fed the cow and thereafter started milking it but the cow gave only ½ liter milk and in the morning she gave only 1 liter of milk. There was a problem in the udder of cow and the calf was also not well. The complainant told the same to the opposite party telephonically and also sent a video of the cow but the opposite party refused to accept the same and thereafter stopped replying the calls and messages of the complainant. .The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.39700/-, to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.500-700/- on account of daily cost of cow to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Notice issued to opposite party not received back either served or unserved. Trace report also placed on record which revealed that item delivery confirmed. But none has come present on behalf of opposite party. Hence, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.05.2023 of this Commission.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A, documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and closed his evidence on dated 13.06.2023.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that there are several points raised by the complainant in the pleadings related to the cow in question. One CD is also placed on record by the complainant in his evidence as Ex.C4. A thorough perusal of CD itself proves that the behavior of the cow shown in the video is not calm not only in normal course but also during milking it becomes more violent. Moreover it is clearly shown that the cow is only giving maximum 1½ liter milk at one time i.e. maximum 3 to 4 liters per day which is against the facts stated by the opposite party at their youtube channel. As far as the question related to the Udder as shown in video, it clearly shows that the cow is not newly yean. The position of udder floor is not that which is capable of giving 10 liters of milk. The udder is also damaged as stated by the complainant. The CD also proves the contentions raised by the complainant that even after keeping the cow for more than 15 days instead of 10 days, the cow is not able to fulfill the conditions as stated by the respondent as the cow is not that which was shown for sale. Hence we have reached to the conclusion that are several breaches have been committed by the respondent as he has not sold the cow which was shown by him online. Moreover the cow delivered by him is not fulfilling any of the condition which was told by him. Both the contentions proves the unfair trade practices as well as grave deficiency in service. As such opposite party is liable to pay the cost of cow beside the transport charges to the complainant which comes to Rs.35000/- plus Rs.5200/- but the complainant has demanded Rs.39700/-. Hence he is entitled for the alleged amount of Rs.39700/-.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.39700/-(Rupees thirty nine thousand seven hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 29.03.2023 till its realization to the complainant. Opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation
on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. However, opposite party is at liberty to take back his cow from the complainant at his own cost within one month from the date of decision after making the alleged awarded amount to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.06.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member
