By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The facts alleged in the complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant purchased one “Cholly” and other clothings from the shop of the opposite Party on 28.12.2008. The price collected from the Complainant for this clothing is Rs.2,450/-. The fancy items purchased by the Complainant was for his sister-in-law for wearing it on the day before her marriage. The clothing was when taken for wearing it was found that the stuff is not good in quality and it is torn to shreds. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party to replace the material which is not up to the quality. The Opposite Party was not ready to replace the clothing instead the Complainant was also insulted. The Complainant forced to purchase an another clothing to the purpose, when rejected the replacing of the material of substandard quality. The Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.15,000/- along with refunding of Rs.2,450/- which was given towards the cost of the “cholly”.

- 2 -

2. The Opposite Party filed version and in short it is as follows:- The Complainant purchased the clothing of “cholly” at the price of Rs. 2,450/-. The selection of the material was not under persuasion instead along with the Complainant other ladies were also present for purchasing the cloth. The cloth sold to the Complainant belongs to a fancy item and if not properly stitched and maintained clothing would be damaged. The Complainant came to the shop of the Opposite Party and demanded the replacement of material sold due to the careless use and in stitching if any damages effected the Opposite party is not responsible for it. As a result the Opposite Party was not in a position to replace the “Cholly” as demanded by the Complainant. The clothing sold by the Opposite Party does not belonged to any substandard quality. The complaint is motivated to tarnish the reputation of the firm run by the Opposite party. The complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

3. The points in consideration are:

1. Whether the sale of the “Cholly” material amount to an unfair trade practice?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Ext.A1 and MO1 are marked . The Opposite Party tendered evidence filing proof affidavit swearing the contentions and Ext.B1 is marked for the Opposite Party.

5. The dispute in facts is with respect to the sale of “cholly”, a clothing purchased by the Complainant. The clothing is torn to shreds before using it on the previous day before the marriage of the Complainants sister-in-law Both the Complainant and Opposite Parties tendered oral evidence. The dispute is with respect to the quality of the clothing sold to the

(Contd......3)

- 3 -

Complainant. The Opposite Party is in the opinion that the material sold to the Complainant is having its own quality as a fancy item. On the other hand the Complainant contention is that the clothing is torn to shreds when it was taken for wearing it on the significant day. The MO1 is the “cholly” produced by the Complainant. On examination of MO1 it is found that the clothing is not up to the quality and it is tearning to shreds. A confirmatory test by an expert is not found necessary and a visual examination is more than sufficient. The Opposite Party also admitted that if there is any genuine defect or any damage evented in the goods sold they are responsible to exchanged it. We are in the opinion that the “cholly” material sold to the Complainant is damaged not at the stitching point The material itself is not pertaining the quality of it and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- The Opposite Party admitted that the “cholly” material was sold to the Complainant at the price of Rs.2,450/-. The material sold is not stitched completely instead a semi readymade. The Opposite Party prayed for compensation of Rs.16,000/- however it is not supported by any evidence. The purchase of the cloth in was for the use of it on the previous day to the marriage of Complainant's sister-in-law. The relevancy of the circumstances is not found lessor in importance. The price of the clothing Rs.2,450/- is admitted by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has to refund the price of the “cholly” which is in substandard quality to the Complainant along with cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.2,450/- (Rupees Two thousand Four hundred and Fifty only) the price of the “cholly” accepted along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards cost and compensation.

(Contd.....4)

- 4 -

The clothing material MO1 produced is release to the Opposite Party. The order is to be complied within one month on receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the of 30^th day of May 2009

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

PW1. Aboobacker Sidhique. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party :

OPW1. Abdul Razak. Manager, Sobha Textiles Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Copy of Bill dt. 28.12.2008

MO1. Cholly

Exhibits for the Opposite party :

B1. Authorization letter