Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant she who entrusted 2 sarees along with a ladies top to the 2^nd opposite party for dry cleaning on 07/11/2017.  The 2^nd opposite party issued a receipt to the complainant as shown below:

Sl.No.25         Store Code 25         Date 07/11/2017        Delivery DT 17/11/17

   No.           items                     TAG           Qty                       Rate            Total

    1.            Saree           5066           1                          150

    2.            Saree           5067           1                         110

    3.         Ladies Top      5068           1                            55

                                                                             Rs.     315/-

                                                          (Rupees Three Hundred and Fifteen Only)

          It is contented that the opposite parties failed to return the above item No.1 Saree (tag No.5066) as promised or agreed by them.  As per the receipt issued by the 2^nd opposite party on 07/11/2017 the above item would had to be delivered on 11/11/2017.  It is contented that one of the item – the Jute saree as a gift she received on her 25^th wedding anniversary so that the saree was so precious to her.  The acts of the opposite parties are highly affected to the complainant and it caused mental agony and hard ships to her.  It is stated that the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service against the complainant and all of them are liable to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party is the proprietor of the 2^nd opposite party the dry cleaning shop and the 3^rd opposite party in the party array is the proprietor of the firm.  The complainant impleaded additional 4^th opposite party in the party array on 29/05/2018 as additional 4^th opposite party since he is the present proprietor.  Hence, the case for refund of the cost of the saree Rs.9,500/- compensation, cost etc. etc.

                    3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for appearance.  The 1^st & 2^nd opposite party are set ex parte in this case and as per order in IA.82/18 the present owner of the Dry Cleaning Shop made as the additional 4^th opposite party in this case.  Though the 4^th opposite party appeared before this Forum and filed a memo for grading time for version he failed to file any version as requested. 

                   4. On the basis of the complainant and records before us we framed the following issues for consideration.     

                   1. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged?    

                   2. Regarding relief and cost?     

                   5. The evidence of this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of her chief examination and Ext.A1.  The complainant is examined as PW1 in this case.  The complainant as PW1 deposed more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  According to PW1 he entrusted the items mentioned in the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party for dry cleaning purpose and paid an amount of Rs.315/- for the said work.  It is deposed that the item No.1 saree having tag No.5066 has not returned to PW1 and only returned item No.2 and 3 in Ext.A1.  It is depose that the item No.1 saree was so precious to her because it was a gift to her in her 25^th wedding anniversary.  When we evaluate the evidence of this case we can see that the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are declared ex parte and additional 4^th opposite party is made as additional 4^th opposite party in this case since he is the present owner of the said dry cleaning shop.  It is come out in evidence to show that PW1 who entrusted this items to the 2^nd opposite party for dry cleaning purpose out of its except 1^st item mentioned in Ext.A1 all other items where returned.  Since 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are declared ex party the evidence adduce against them are unchallengeable as far as the case is concerned.  It is also interesting to see that though the additional 4^th opposite party appeared in person and filed a memo seek time for filing version he did not turn up in the further proceedings of this case.   The complainant himself admitted that additional 4^th opposite party is the present owner of the dry cleaning shop and also admitted that at the time of the entrustment of the item seen in Ext.A1 the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are the person who are conducting the dry cleaning shops.  The main question to be concerned is whether the present owner has any liability with regards to the failure of return of the 1^st item in Ext.A1.  According to the complainant he impleaded additional 4^th opposite party in this case for representing the dry cleaning shop.  We don’t think that the additional 4^th opposite party has any liability to the complainant as contended by the complainant.  Therefore we would like to exonerate additional 4^th opposite party from all charges.  We can find that the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party are liable to the complainant since they committed deficiency in service against the complainant.  Therefore we would like to find liability only against the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party and also find that the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party are jointly and severally liable to the complainant.  Hence point No.1 and 2 found in favour of the complainant. 

                   6. In the result we pass the following orders.

                        1. The 1^st to 3^rd opposite party is hereby directed to refund the  

                            cost of the saree of Rs.9,500/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Five Hundred Only), compensation of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five Thousand Only) along with a cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the complainant within   one month of receipt of this order if fails, the opposite parties are liable to pay 10% interest to the said amount        

                            from the date of this filing of this case i.e., 03/04/2018.  

                          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st  day of December, 2018.

                                                                                             (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                           (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)  :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Reena Varghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Bill issued 4^th opposite party dated 7/11/2014. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:Nil.

                                                                                                         (By Order)

Copy to:-

1. Reena Varghese,

    W/o.Dr.Jhonykkutty, Plakkal Veedu, Vazhamuttom East.P.O.,

    Pathanamthitta – 689648.

2. ALLURE Dry Cleaners,

   Rep. by its Propetior Mr.Rajeev.V,  Aswathy,  Tholickodu.P.O.,

   Kollam District. (Set Ex parte on 09/05/2018)

3. ALLURE Dry Cleaners,

    Kaiplavil Building, Near DCP Office, Thazhe vettipuram, Ring Road,

   Pathanamthitta – 689645.  (Set Ex parte on 09/05/2018)

4. Rajeev.V,

    Swathy, Tholickodu.P.O., Kollam District.(Set Ex parte on 09/05/2018)

5. Sreeraj,

    S/o.Sreedharan,  Savitham, Kunnathur,

    Manampuzha, Kollam – 69153

    6.The stock file.