IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 28th day of February, 2018.
Filed on 20/06/2017
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.170/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Sathar, 1. Authorised Signatory,
Madathilparambu, Krishnas Textiles Dealers,
Punnapra South.P.O, Alappuzha.
Alappuzha. (By Adv. Joseph Mathew)
ORDER
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case precisely is as follows:-
The complainant on 14th June 2017 purchased some textile items from the opposite party. Amongst the fabrics so purchased, the complainant also bought two `Baba suits’ each cost Rs.62/- and Rs.60/- . However on examination of the bill it was found that cost of three `baba suites’ were taken by the opposite party. The complainant went to the opposite party shop and impressed upon them that they have mistakenly imposed the cost of three `baba suits’ on the complainant instead of two. Upon this, the opposite party mocked at the complainant and humiliated him scornfully. The complainant has purchased only two `baba suits’ and the same could be revealed if the CCTV footage available in the shop if examined, the complainant contends. The complainant sustained extreme mental agony and loss. The complainant, got aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation, and other relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite party turned up, and filed version. The crux of the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had purchased several fabrics including two `baba suits’. Thereafter when the bill was issued, they bought another one, and thus a third one was purchased. According to the opposite party one of the cloths in dispute must have lost on the way, and the attempt of the complainant must be making illegal enrichment.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1, and the document Exbt. A1 series was marked. On the side of the opposite party, the authorized representative was examined as RW1.
4. Keeping in view, the contentions of the parties, the issues that crop up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of sevice?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief?
5. Concededly, the complainant purchased textile items from the opposite party. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has purchased `baba suit’ from the opposite party. The bone of contention is that according to the complainant only two `baba suits’ were purchased, but the opposite party charged for three. On a perusal of the bill it can be seen that the opposite parties had got hold of the cost of three `baba suits’. According to the opposite party one of the suits must have been missed somewhere on their way to the complainant’s residence. Looking into the opposite party’s said contention, it seems so unlikely that one of the fabrics might have slipped out from the bundle particularly when the textile items purchased are usually packed properly. It is pertinent to note that Rw1 when was cross-examined stated that the items which are having same bar code carry same cost. When being questioned as to the difference in price of the baba suits having same barcode, Rw1 deposed that it must have been a mistake. Thus on an analysis of the materials available on record before us it does appear that the complainant case is more reliable and trustworthy. In the context of the complainant’s assertive case backed up by the convincing surrounding circumstance, and more so in the absence of any inspiring materials on the part of the opposite party to bring home their contention, we are persuaded to hold that the complainant case merit acceptance. Needless the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. In the result, complaint allowed the opposite party is directed to refund the complainant Rs.62/- (Rupees sixty two only), the cost of one `baba suit’. The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for hardships and mental agony he sustained. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this 28th day ofFebruary 2018.
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sathar (Witness)
Ext.A1 Series - Bills (3 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite parties :-
RW1 - Satheesh Kumar.A (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
