DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 21^st  day of February,  2022

Present    :  Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                :  Smt.Vidya A., Member                                                   Date of Filing: 17/03/2016   

     CC/44/2016

Anoop George Joseph,

S/o.V.V.Joseph,

Vettiyolil House,

Nurani, Palakkad

(By Adv.M.J.Vince)                                                      -           Complainant

                                                                                      Vs

Abdul Salam,
     Proprietor

Modern Fashion Home

7/5, College Road,

 Palakkad – 678 001

(By Adv.A.A.Abdulla)                                                   -           Opposite party

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. Complaint allegations are to the effect that the complainant, a college lecturer, delivered a pant piece to the opposite party for stitching a pant.  Upon delivery, it was found that  the pant suffered from obsoleteness and was stitched in an unfit manner. When confronted with the defective pant the opposite party assaulted and manhandled and injured the complainant. The complainant had to undergo hospitalisation as outpatient for a  fracture sustained by him for nearly a month.     The pants could not be worn by the complainant.  He lost salary for a month as he could not attend college for a month.  The complainant sought for compensation for Rs.1 lakh and incidental reliefs.
2. Opposite party filed version countering complaint allegation. He maintained that the stitching was perfect and that it was the complainant who initiated the fisticuff and that it was he who  had suffered and not the complainant. All the allegations made against him as false and vexatious and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. From a reading of the pleadings the following issues arise for consideration

1. Whether the complainant has proved that the stitching of the pants   was    faulty ?
2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for ?

4.         Reliefs and cost, if any.

4.         Evidence comprised of proof affidavit by contesting parties and Ext.A1 to A4 on the part of complainant. The pants was produced as MO1.  Ext.C1 & C2 are two reports by the same expert commissioner.    

             Issue Nos. 1 & 2

5.         The clear case of the complainant is that the pants that was stitched “obsoletely” by opposite party does not fit properly.   Inorder to ascertain the defects the complainant filed commission application and Sri.N.Muhilvannen, Associate Professor in National Institute of Fashion Technology, Kannur was appointed as expert commissioner. He had filed 3 reports out of which the report dated 22/06/2017 was marked as Ext.C1 and the report dated 6/1/2020 was marked as Ext.C2.  A third report was let off. 

6.         Ext.C1 shows that 12 aspects in defect description suffers from minor defects. With regard to measurement defects there are 12 minor defects. There are two minor defects due to improper machinery. Ext.C1 is made based on a comparison of the measurement of the sample pants. When a sample pants is handed over it is the bounden duty of the tailor to stitch a new pant in accordance with measurement of the sample pants. Furthermore he is also bound to keep his tools in pristine condition.   

7.         Ext.C2 is based on measuring the body of the complainant. Here, out of 6 points  of measurement 5 does not affect the fitness. The 6^th deviation  is beyond normal limits that are generally accepted. 

8.         On conjoint reading of Ext.C1 and C2 we come to the following conclusions.

1. As per Ext.C1 the entire parameters show minor defects. Even though the individual parameters may show minor deviations or defects, the cumulative effect would be disastrous.
2. The defects found in Ext.C1 are  under 3 heads.

i)Workmanship

ii)Measurement

iii) Improper machinery

3. The measurements and style of sample pants could not be achieved by the

            opposite party.

4. Ext.C2 defect is a deviation that is beyond normal limits.

9. The opposite party claim that there was no defect whatsoever in the stitching. He has also filed objections to the Ext.C2 commission report.  But there was no evidence whatsoever to disprove Ext.C1 & C2. Whatever be the objections,  the fact remains that the pants was stitched in a defective manner. Period. No amount of justification would negate that factor. 

Hence, we hold that the complainant has successfully proved that the stitching of the pants is faulty.

Issue No.3

10.       The complainant has sought for Rs.1 lakh as compensation.  We do not find fault with the argument that a bad dress is a burden hard to bear, but the compensation of Rs.1 lakh is too far fetched. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that he had undergone treatment or has suffered monetarily by way of  loss of salary for one month. Hence, we are unable to grant the relief as sought for.

Issue No.4

11. The complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party. We fix a compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of these proceedings.

12.       Comply  with the order within 45 days from receipt of a copy of this order.

              Pronounced in the open court on this the 21^st   day of February, 2022.

 Sd/-

                                                                              Vinay Menon V.

                                                 President

 Sd/-

Vidya A.

                    Member      

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Certified copy of the records in CC/98/2016 on the file of the JFMC II Palakkad

Ext.A2 –   Original of retail invoice dated 6/9/2015

Ext.A3 series–  Lawyers notice dated 8/2/2016 alongwith postal receipt and

                            acknowledgment card.  

Ext.A4 –   Original of slip bearing No.51 dated 11/11/2015

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

 Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

 Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties

NIL

Court exhibits

C1  – Report dated 22/6/17 submitted by Sri.N. Muhilvannan

C2 – Report dated 06/01/2020  submitted by Sri.N. Muhilvannan

Cost :  Rs.5,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.