PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of June 2012
Filed on : 10/05/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 239/2011
Between
N.P. Seena, : Complainant
D/o. N.I. Pakrudeen, (By Adv. M.K. Robinraj,
ECRA No. 99, 5A,2nd floor, Jewel arcade.
North Maliyam veedu, Layam road, Ernakulam)
Opp. Alameen School,(via)
N.H. 17, Edappally -24,
Rep. by N.I. Pakrudeen.
.
And
1. A.A. Vincent, : Opposite parties
Proprietor, Anjiparambildry (By Adv. George Cherian
clearners, Near Canera Bank, Karippaparambil, Karippaparambil
Manorama Junction, Associates, HB-48, Panampilly
Parampilly Nagar, Kochi-16. Nagar, Kochi-682 036)
2. Jayalakshmi Silks and Sarees, (By Adv. Roy Varghese,
M.G Road, Ernakulam. Olimolath house, Pancode P.O.,
Ernakulam-682 310)
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
The complainant’s case is as follows:
The complainant purchased a maroon colour silk saree worth Rs. 3,300/- from the 2nd opposite party. Its boarder and munthani has mustard yellow colour. The same was entrusted with the 1st opposite party on 20-08-2010 for dry wash. The 1st opposite party received the saree for dry cleaning after verifying whether there was any damage in the saree. At the time of delivery of the saree by the opposite party the complainant noticed that there was colour change in the boarder and munthani. This brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party. But he discarded the same and his behavior was rude and humiliating. The complainant returned without receiving the saree. Hence this complaint. The complainant is seeking the following relief against the 1st opposite party.
To direct the 1st opposite party to pay compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party.
The 1st opposite party receives the saree for dry cleaning after verifying whether there is any damage in the saree. The 1st opposite party did not notice any damage and the saree was accepted for dry cleaning. The 1st opposite party received the saree for dry cleaning the boarder and munthani colour were same as that of the saree. As per the standard procedure the dry cleaning was conducted and complainant’s saree was ready for delivery as agreed with the complainant on 28-10-2010. The saree of the complainant was dry cleaned with due care and caution and it is ensured that there is no change in colour of the munthani and the boarder in the saree as alleged by the complainant.
2. The 2nd opposite party’s version is as follows:
The 2nd opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. No reliefs and allegations are against them. The complainant admitted that she had entrusted the saree with the 1st opposite party after having convinced on verification and inspection of its condition itself proves that the saree purchased by the complainant was defect free. Moreover, till date there was no allegations or complaint about its quality having raised. The complainant is having no cause of action against the 2nd opposite party.
3. The complainant appeared through the power of Attorney holder. The opposite parties represented through the counsel. The witness for the complainant was examined as PW1. Ext. A1 was marked on her side. The 1st opposite party was examined as DW1. Heard both sides.
4. The only point that arose for determination is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party or not?
There is no dispute that the saree in question was entrusted with the 1st opposite party for dry cleaning. The complainant contented that after dry wash the colour of the saree had changed. Therefore, she did not take back the saree from the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party refuted the contentions of the complainant. But the complainant did not take any steps to produce the disputed saree in the Forum for verification. Moreover DW1 was not cross-examined by the complainant. The evidence of the 1st opposite party remained unchallenged. Nothing is before us to substantiate the contentions of the complainant with respect to the defects of the saree in question. Therefore, in the absence of any convincing and reliable evidence we are not to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Complaint had no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The complainant is at a liberty to take back the saree in question from the 1st opposite party.
6. In the result, we dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2012.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : copy of bill dt. 20-08-2010
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
Deposition
PW1 : N.I. Pakrudeen
