Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

929/2009

M.G.Martin Manivanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Derby Clothing Pvt, Ltd & others - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ravikumar

25 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 19.10.2009

                                                                          Date of Order : 25.01.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B., PGDCLP.                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.929/2009

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019

                                 

M.G. Martin Manivannan,

S/o. Mr. M. George,

No.78, 1^st Floor,

V.V. Koil Street,

Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar,

Anna Nagar West,

Chennai – 600 040.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                     

 

                                                                                       ..Versus..

1. Derby Clothing Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

Mr. Vijayakapoor,

No.121-124, Shivalaya Building ‘A’ Block,

C.N.C. Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.  

 

2. Mr. Vijayakapoor,

Managing Director,

Derby Clothing Pvt. Ltd.,

No.121-124, Shivalaya Building ‘A’ Block,

C.N.C. Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.  

 

3. Mr. Vijayakumar,

Director,

Derby Clothing Pvt. Ltd.,

No.121-124, Shivalaya Building ‘A’ Block,

C.N.C. Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.  

4.  The Manager,

Derby Clothing Pvt. Ltd.,

Shop No.99, Shivalaya Building ‘A’ Block,

C.N.C. Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                               ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                       :  M/s. K. Ravikumar

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 :  M/s. K. P. Sathish Kumar &

                                                                  another

Counsel for the opposite parties 3 & 4 :  Exparte

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 4 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to replace the defective trouser with a new trouser of correct size of 34” to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship and unfair trade practice with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased three number, 34 inches trousers from the 4^th opposite party’s shop on 08.03.2008 after paying a sum of Rs.2,243/- vide bill No.S20/11393.  The complainant submits that while wearing the trousers, one of the trouser bearing product code No.1A000091 become unfit and it is of not 34 inch size.  Hence, the complainant took the trouser to the 4^th opposite party for due exchange.  The 4^th opposite party after receiving the trouser, directed the complainant to come after 2 days.   Thereafter also, the complainant visited the 4^th opposite party’s shop for more than 5 time besides his busy schedule of work and each and every time, the 4^th opposite party told some excuses and shifted the burden on one after another and refused to replace the defective trouser with new trouser of the correct size.  Hence, the complainant issued notice on 07.04.2009 to the opposite parties for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply.  The complainant produced the unfit trouser before this Forum.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that they believe in the principle “Customer is the King”.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that they are conducting business with utmost good faith.  The complainant purchased 3 trousers out of which, one become unfit due to the size.  The opposite parties while selling the trousers very clearly mentioned that “No alteration, no return and no exchange even then, the opposite parties are ready and willing to exchange the trouser.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2.  Immediately after return in the trouser by the complainant, the opposite party received it and requested the complainant to come after 2 days in order to verify the articles of similar size.  The opposite parties 1 & 2  state that there is no basis for such huge claim towards mental agony and unfair trade practice.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite parties 3 & 4 has not appeared before this Forum and hence the opposite parties 3 & 4 were set Exparte.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.  Inspite of sufficient time is given, the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not come forward to file his proof affidavit and documents to prove the contentions in the written version and the evidence on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is closed.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the defective trouser with a new one of correct size of 34” as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship, unfair trade practice, expenses, loss and cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The opposite parties 3 & 4 remained Exparte.  Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Inspite of sufficient time is given, the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not come forward to file his proof affidavit and documents to prove the contentions in the written version.  Heard the Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased three number, 34 inches trousers from the 4^th opposite party’s shop on 08.03.2008 after paying a sum of Rs.2,243/- as per Ex.A1 is admitted.  Further the contention of the complainant is that while wearing the trousers, one of the trouser become unfit and it is of not 34 inch size.  Hence, the complainant took the trouser to the 4^th opposite party for due exchange.  The 4^th opposite party after receiving the trouser, directed the complainant to come after 2 days.   The complainant went after two days thereafter also, the 4^th opposite party has not come forward to exchange the unfit trouser.  On the other hand, the opposite party stated that no alteration return or exchange can be done which amounts to unfair trade practice.  Evenafter repeated requests and demands, the 4^th opposite party refused to exchange the unfit trouser which amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant issued notice on 07.04.2009 to the opposite parties for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply. The complainant produced the unfit trouser and is marked as M.O. No.1.  The complainant is claiming the exchange of the trouser and huge amount of compensation for mental agony and cost.   The opposite parties also in their written version and proof affidavit admitted the unfitness and ready for exchange.

7.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that they believe the principle “Customer is the King”.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 contended that they are conducting business with utmost good faith.  The complainant purchased 3 trousers out of which, one become unfit due to the size.  The opposite parties while selling the trousers very clearly mentioned that “No alteration, no return and no exchange even then, the opposite parties are ready and willing to exchange the trouser.  Further contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2.  Immediately after return the trouser by the complainant, the opposite parties received it and requested the complainant to come after 2 days in order to verify the articles of similar size.  Anyhow, the opposite parties has not exchanged the trouser till date.  Further contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2  is that there is no basis for such huge claim towards mental agony and unfair trade practice.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall exchange the trouser of the same quality within one month, failing which, to pay the cost price of Rs.695/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of this order and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to exchange the trouser of the same quality within one month, failing which, to pay the cost price of the trouser for a sum of Rs.695/- (Rupees Six hundred and ninety five only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e.) 19.10.2009 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 25.01.2019 and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant. 

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	08.03.2008	Copy of Tax bill
Ex.A2	07.04.2009	Copy of legal notice
Ex.A3	08.04.2009	Copy of postal receipt
Ex.A4	09.04.2009	Copy of acknowledgement cards
Ex.A5		Trouser – 1 No.

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  Evidence closed.

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT