DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of May 2023
Filed on: 01/07/2016
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 517/2021
COMPLAINANT
K.P.Benny, S/o.Philipose, Kadalikattel House, Kakkoor P.O., Vettimood, Muvattupuzha Taluk, pin-686 662
(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Sunil, S/o.Raghavan Nair, Veliyath House, Thirumarady P.O., Muvattupuzha Taluk-686 662
FINAL O R D E R
DB.Binu, President
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the, a livestock rearer, approached the opposite party after being informed by a middleman that there was a cow for sale that could produce 11 liters of milk in the morning. The opposite party confirmed this claim, stating that the cow was healthy and could yield the desired amount of milk. Based on these representations, the complainant purchased the cow for Rs.58,000/-.
However, upon milking the cow, the complainant discovered that it only produced 7 liters of milk in the morning. Seeking clarification, the complainant consulted a surgeon at Tirumaradi Veterinary Hospital, who revealed that one among the udder hind quarter is small and has lost its milk production capacity.
The complainant informed the opposite party about this issue and requested a refund for the cow and the money paid. However, the opposite party refused to comply. Subsequently, the complainant filed complaint with both the Koothattukulam Police Station and the Tirumaradi Panchayat Office, but no action was taken.
To resolve the matter, a notice was sent to the opposite party through a lawyer on December 8, 2020. Despite receiving the notice, the opposite party still refused to address the complaint. The opposite party was aware of the cow's lower milk production but intentionally concealed this information and misrepresented the cow's milk yield to the complainant.
As a result, the complainant alleges that the opposite party's actions constitute a deficiency in service.
The complainant sought a refund of Rs. 58,000/- with interest, as well as Rs. 20,000/- in compensation. They claimed that the Opposite parties' inadequate service, negligence, and unfair trade practices had resulted in financial losses and damages.
2. Notice
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice and filed their version.
3). VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The complainant initially milked the cow and subsequently purchased it from the opposite party. At the time of purchase, the cow did not have any health issues. The opposite party claims that the cow yielded 11 liters of milk during its last calving. The complainant has not raised any concerns about the cow producing less milk nor demanded a refund or return of the cow. Additionally, the complainant has not experienced any financial loss due to the cow's purchase. Therefore, it is argued that there should be a response to the complaint as it appears unfounded based on these circumstances.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-5.
Exhibit A-1: copy of veterinary Certificate dated 03.12.2021
Exhibit A-2: copy of quantity of milk measured by the complainant in various days
Exhibit A-3: copy of acknowledgment receipt of petition (koothattukulam Police Station) dated 30.11.2021
Exhibit A-4: copy of letter issued by Thirumaradi Grama Panjayath dated 30.11.2021
Exhibit A-5: copy of lawyer notice dated 08.12.2021 and copy of acknowledgment cards.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. It is admitted in the version of opposite party that the cow was bought from the opposite party by receiving money from the complainant. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party to purchase a cow that was claimed to produce 11 liters of milk in the morning. The opposite party confirmed this claim and the complainant purchased the cow based on these representations. However, after buying the cow, the complainant discovered that it only produced 7 liters of milk due to one among the udder hind quarter is small.
The complainant informed the opposite party and requested a refund, but the opposite party refused to comply. Complaints were filed with the police station and the panchayat office, but no action was taken. A notice was sent to the opposite party through a lawyer, but they still refused to address the complaint. The complainant alleges that the opposite party intentionally concealed information about the lower milk production, constituting a deficiency in service.
The opposite party submitted that the complainant first milked the cow and then bought it from the opposite party. The cow was healthy when purchased and there were no issues with its milk production. The opposite party claims that the cow yielded 11 liters of milk during its last calving. The complainant has not raised any concerns about the cow's milk production or requested a refund or return. Furthermore, the complainant has not suffered any financial loss due to the purchase of the cow. Based on these circumstances, it is argued that the complaint seems to be unfounded and should be addressed accordingly.
The complainant consulted a surgeon at Tirumaradi Veterinary Hospital regarding the cow. The surgeon discovered that one of the cow's udder hind quarters is small and has lost its milk production capacity, as evidenced by Exhibit A-1. It is implied that the cow was sold by the opposite party without disclosing this aspect to the complainant, who only discovered it after purchasing the cow on the date of delivery.
After three days from the purchase, the complainant filed complaints with the police station and the panchayat office, as indicated by Exhibit A-3 and A-4. Furthermore, a notice was sent to the opposite party through a lawyer, as stated in Exhibit A-5.
It seems that the complainant is taking legal action against the opposite party for selling the cow without disclosing its diminished milk production capacity. The provided exhibits, A1, to A-5, contain additional supporting evidence related to the case.
The Opposite Party had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of Opposite Party in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall refund of Rs. 58,000/- towards the purchase price of the cow to the Complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.5,000 as compensation for the mental hurt, loss, agony and hardship caused to the complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.3000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 31st day of May 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Forwarded/by OrderAssistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Exhibit A-1: copy of veterinary Certificate dated 03.12.2021
Exhibit A-2: copy of quantity of milk measured by the complainant in various days
Exhibit A-3: copy of acknowledgment receipt of petition (koothattukulam Police Station) dated 30.11.2021
Exhibit A-4: copy of letter issued by Thirumaradi Grama Panjayath dated 30.11.2021
Exhibit A-5: copy of lawyer notice dated 08.12.2021 and copy of acknowledgment cards.
