THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Not every promise is genuine. Mathai learnt it the hard way.
Three years after he was tricked into purchasing a cow that failed to give anywhere close to the ‘18 litres of milk per day’ he was assured, the Kasaragod native got relief from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). As per Mathai, he purchased a pregnant cow from Ganesh Rao, also from Kasaragod, on April 9, 2022, for Rs 36,500. Rao promised Mathai the bovine would give 18 litres of milk per day.
However, after delivery, the cow gave just 2 litres of milk and reacted violently whenever it was milked. It refused to feed the calf and would kick it away, Mathai said.
Mathai took the matter up with Rao. However, the latter’s wife approached the police accusing him of creating nuisance at their home. During mediation by the police, Rao claimed he would prove the cow delivered the promised milk if it is milked at his residence.
On the police’s directive, the cow and calf were taken to his residence. However, Rao refused to return the animals.
Mathai then approached the District Legal Services Authority, but Rao remained ex-parte. He then moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
There, he got a rude shock. Rao claimed he never sold such a cow to him. Still, the commission favoured Mathai and directed Rao to refund him, and also pay him compensation and legal costs.
Aggrieved, Rao filed an appeal with the SCDRC. The bench comprising SCDRC president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, judicial member Ajith Kumar D and member K R Radhakrishnan heard the case.
Seller asked to pay refund, give Rs 15,000 as compensation
The bench observed that Rao did not cross-examine Mathai though he denied the contentions before the district commission. Since Mathai was not cross-examined, the evidence of the complainant (Mathai) remained as an unchallenged testimony.
Rao argued that Mathai could not produce any receipt to prove the purchase and that his oral evidence alone was insufficient to conclude deficiency in service. However, the bench observed that documentary evidence could not be insisted in transactions like the purchase of a cow by rustic villagers. In such cases, oral evidence can be considered if it is reliable and convincing.
“If documentary evidence is insisted upon in such a situation, it will amount to denying the rights of the consumer, which is against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act,” the bench said.
It said it was convinced by Mathai’s statement confirming the transaction on a false promise. It upheld the district commission’s order directing Rao to refund the Rs 36,500 he took from Mathai, and also pay Rs 15,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as legal costs.