BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 15th day of September, 2016
FIRST APPPEAL No. 5/2016
The Authorised Signatory,
New Tiruppur Export Garments,
No.15, Jawaharlal Nehru Street,
Karikar Building, Puducherry. ………. Appellant
Vs.
A.Ramasamy, S/o Arikrishnan,
No.33, III Cross, Thilakar Nagar,
Puducherry. ……….. Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C..No.1/2014, dt.09.02.2016 by District Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.1/2014
A.Ramasamy, S/o Arikrishnan,
No.33, III Cross, Thilakar Nagar,
Puducherry. ……….. Complainant
Vs.
The Authorised Signatory,
New Tiruppur Export Garments,
No.15, Jawaharlal Nehru Street,
Karikar Building, Puducherry. ………. Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Tvl S.P.Vasudevan & T.Gurumurthy
Advocates, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
M/s L.Swaminathan & L.Ilankumar,
Advocates, Puducherry.
O R D E R
(By Hon'ble Justice President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 09.02.2016 made in C.C.1/2014.
2. The Opposite Party therein is the appellant herein and the complainant thereon is the respondent.
3. The complainant has filed the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Form (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum' for convenience) seeking the following reliefs. (1) to exchange the defective Chutidhar top material or to refund the sum of Rs.330/- for the defective material, (2) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, etc. and (3) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
4. The case of the complainant before the District Forum in nutshell, is stated hereunder:
He purchased the dress material from the opposite party under Bill No.578 and 580 for a sum of Rs.1,400/- and Rs.330/- respectively. When he went to tailor shop for stitching, he found a defect in the chutidar top. He asked the opposite party to exchange the same, but he refused for the same and threatened him with filthy language and forced him to get out of the shop. Therefore, he has caused legal notice to the opposite party on 21.08.2013 demanding to exchange the defective chutidar top material and also to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.2,000/-. A reply was sent by the opposite party wherein he has offered a new dress material for Rs.330/-, but not mentioned about the compensation payable. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.
5. Reply version was filed on behalf of the opposite party wherein, the following facts have been set out.
It is true that the dress material was purchased on 02.07.2013 for Rs.330/- vide bill No.580. In the bill, it is stated that 'goods once sold cannot be taken back'. After a period of few days, the complainant came to opposite party, returned the chutidar top and demanded to pay back the amount. He has been explained that the 'goods once sold cannot be taken back'. He has also informed the complainant to bring the dress material for exchange. The complainant left the shop and came after 45 minutes saying that he is a Government servant and he knows all the political leaders, V.I.P.s and police officials and threatened the opposite party with dire consequences and phoned to some persons and asked them to come to the shop. The opposite party requested the complainant not to create problems in front of other customers and agreed to exchange the dress material as it was sold. However, the complainant and other persons who came to the shop, forced the opposite party to endorse in the bill "without sleeve" and the opposite party endorsed the same. When the complainant came to the shop to exchange the chutidar top, the opposite party told him that while stitching, it is stained with oil drops. When the opposite party questioned the same, the complainant threatened action with dire consequences. Thus, the opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. On behalf of the complainant, none was examined before the District Forum, but Exs.C1 to C5 were filed and marked and M.O.1 was also marked. On behalf of the opposite party, RW1 was examined, however, no document was filed.
7. Before the District Forum, it has been found that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it has been found that the opposite party rendered deficiency in service. The opposite party was directed to return Rs.330/- being the cost of dress material; to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
8. As stated already, the above appeal has been preferred against the said order of the District Forum.
9.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and opposite party and also perused all the documents available on record.
10. The District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer, as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant being the purchaser of Chutidar top from the opposite party under Ex.C2 for Rs.330/-, is a consumer, as rightly held by the District Forum. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.
11. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the chutidar top material from the opposite party on 02.07.2013 under two bills, Exs.C1 and C2. The dress material in question was purchased under Bill No.580 for Rs.330/-. According to the complainant, it is found to be defective. The same has been marked as M.O.1 before the District Forum. Even RW1 admitted in the cross-examination that there is a defect in the material purchased from him. He has also stated in his cross-examination as "It is true that sleeve on the one side in M.O.1 is uneven". Even in Ex.C5, reply notice, the opposite party has admitted to take back the dress material purchased for Rs.330/-. It clearly shows that there seems to be some mistake in the dress material purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. The complaint is that the sleeve on the one side is uneven. Admittedly, the opposite party is not the manufacturer of the garment, but, he is only a seller. He cannot be solely held liable for the mistake that has crept in in the chutidar top.
12. The opposite party in the cross-examination has stated that there was oil drop while the complainant came to opposite party to exchange that material. He has further denied that oil drops were there even at the time of purchase. He has further deposed that he did not exchange the chutidar top when the complainant came for the same since oil drops were present in the dress material. When such categorical statements were made by the opposite party not only in the cross-examination but also in the reply version, there is no whisper about the same by the complainant. In fact, the complainant has not examined himself to disprove the said statement. This will show actually the opposite party refused to exchange the dress material when the complainant came for the same due to the fact that oil drops were present in the dress material. When the dress material was in the same position as it was purchased, there will be some justification for the complainant to raise the point that the opposite party refused to exchange the material. As already stated, this point could have been explained by the complainant by entering into the box and through cross-examination, but he failed to do so. As we have already said, the dress material found certain defect, the reason for refusal for exchange of the material is reasonable. Nevertheless, the opposite party in his reply under Ex.C5 offered the complaint to come and take a new dress material worth Rs.330/-.
13. In view of the above reasoning, we are of the view that the District Forum should have directed the opposite party to return the cost of dress material of Rs.330/- alone and should not have directed the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- being compensation for deficiency in service and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of proceedings. Taking such view, we are of the view that the appeal has to be allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay cost of dress material alone. Had the opposite party in his reply under Ex.C5 refused to give new dress material worth Rs.330/-, there is every justification for the complainant to approach the Consumer Forum seeking redressal. Therefore, we are of the view that the opposite party before filing the complaint before the District Forum, has made a genuine attempt to settle the matter.
14. Taking such view, we allow the appeal in part directing the opposite party to return the cost of dress material of Rs.330/- to the complainant and reject the other claims made by the complainant and also set at naught the direction to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of proceedings. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part, as indicated above. The material object, viz. chutidar top is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time. The fixed deposit receipt filed at the time of filing as mandatory deposit, is ordered to be returned to the appellant.
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2016
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
