Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
P.Q. BARKATHALI, PRESIDENT & MR. V.V. JOSE, MEMBER
MUHAMMEDKUTTY - Appellant
Versus
KUNJUMANI & ANR - Respondents
Appeal No. 319 of 2014
Decided On : 13-04-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Dhananjayan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale of a diseased cow to the complainant constituted deficiency of service under the Kerala Consumer Protection Act, 1986, leading to the setting aside of the Forum's order and the direction for refund of the cow's price and payment of compensation to the complainant.
Headnote:
Deficiency of Service - Sale of Diseased Cow - Kerala Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 14(1) - The court discussed the provisions of the Kerala Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly focusing on the definition of 'deficiency of service' under Section 2(1)(g), 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(o), 'complaint' under Section 2(1)(r), and the power of the Forum to issue orders under Section 14(1). The court interpreted these provisions to establish that the sale of a diseased cow amounted to deficiency of service by the opposite parties, leading to the setting aside of the Forum's order and the direction for refund of the cow's price and payment of compensation to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an agriculturist engaged in milk trading, purchased a cow from the opposite parties who assured that it would yield 13 litres of milk per day. However, the cow yielded only 7 litres of milk per day and died with chronic acute pneumonia. The complainant filed a complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 95,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties sold a cow suffering from chronic bronco pneumonia to the complainant, suppressing the fact that it was diseased. The court also noted the opposite parties' failure to make themselves available for cross-examination, leading to the finding of deficiency in service on their part.
Issues: 1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale of a diseased cow by the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service, and their failure to prove the identity of the diseased cow led to the setting aside of the Forum's order.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the Forum dismissing the complaint was set aside, and the opposite parties were directed to refund the price of the cow to the complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 25,000.
JUDGMENT :
P.Q. BARKATHALI, PRESIDENT
1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC/69/2013 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad challenging the order of the Forum dated April, 30, 2014 dismissing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:
The complainant is an agriculturist and engaged in milk trading. He purchased a cow from the opposite parties 1 and 2 on 25.8.2012. At the time of purchase the opposite parties have assured that the cow will yield 13 litres of milk per day. Total price demanded was Rs. 65,000 out of which the complainant paid Rs. 50,000 and for the balance amount of Rs. 15,000 complainant gave one of his cows to the opposite parties. But the cow gave only 7 litres of milk per day. Further the cow died on 9.10.2012 with chronic acute pneumonia. The opposite parties sold the cow to the complainant suppressing the fact that it was suffering from some disease. The cow was treated by the Veterinary Surgeon, Kulukkallur Veterinary Dispensary and after the death of the cow he conducted post-mortem. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 95,000.
3. The opposite parties in their version contented thus before the Forum. The complainant approached the opposite parties on 21.7.2012 for purchasing the cow. The opposite parties sold one cow to the complainant on 21.7.2012 for Rs. 40,000 assuring that the cow will yield 8 litres of milk per day. Towards the price of the cow complainant paid Rs. 15,000 and exchanged his one cow worth Rs. 10,000. Complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 15,000. At the time of handing over the cow to the complainant it was in good health. If at all a cow died it must be some other cow of the complainant. Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1series the photographs of the diseased cow and the Veterinary Surgeon who conducted post-mortem on the deceased cow was examined as PW1 and Ext.C1 series were marked on the side of the complainant before the Forum. On the side of the opposite parties only the chief affidavit was filed.
5. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that complainant failed to prove the identity of the deceased cow and dismissed the complaint. Complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
6. Heard both the Counsel.
7. The following points arisen for consideration:
1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
8. The fact that the complainant purchased a cow from the opposite parties is admitted. According to the complainant the cow died on 9.10.2012 within 3 or 4 months of its purchase. The evidence of the PW1, Veterinary Surgeon shows that the cow died on Acute chronic Pneumonia. Ext.C1 series are the copy of the relevant pages of the register kept in the hospital. According to the complainant the deceased cow was the one purchased from the opposite parties and that the opposite parties sold the cow to the complainant suppressing the fact that it was suffering from chronic bronco pneumonia.
9. The Counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant has not proved that the diseased cow was the one complainant purchased from the opposite parties. There is no merit in the above contention. Complainant produced the photographs of the diseased cow which show that PW1 was conducting the post-mortem on the carcass. None of the opposite parties have apart from filing the chief affidavit has specifically denied the identity of the cow. A civil suit filed by the opposite parties before the Munsiff Court, Pattambi for the alleged balance amount due from the complainant, has already been dismissed as submitted by the Counsel for the complainant. Now the question that has to be decided is whether the diseased cow was suffering from any illness even when it was sold to the
