Date of Filing:19/02/2015

      Date of Order:14/03/2016

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated: 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2016

PRESENT

SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.SC., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PRESIDENT

SRI.H.JANARDHAN,B.A.L, LL.B., MEMBER

SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, B.E(I.P.) LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.341/2015

Dr. Roopa Suresh,

Wife of Dr.Suresh,

Aged about 42 years,

Resident of 4037, 28^th Cross,

17^th Main, BSK II Stage,

Bengaluru- 560 070.                                                                                                                                   Complainant

V/s

Dr.Clean,

Corporate office No.1163,

Data Mansion, 26^th ‘A’ Main,

41^st Cross, Jayanagar 9^th Block,

Bengaluru- 560 069.

Represented by its Chief

Executive Officer.                                     Opposite Party

ORDER

BY SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, MEMBER

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as Op) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Op and prays for direction to the Op to pay Rs.65,000/-  by way of compensation of the damaged sarees/blouse to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings.

2.   The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is resident of BSK II Stage, Bangalore and she was the registered with the outlet of the O.P. branch as Jumbo Family Plan.  The complainant states that, on 13.10.2014 she had given expensive saree and blouse along with two normal sarees with two blouses for Ironing /pressing to the O.P. and the O.P. assured to deliver the same on 16.10.2014 and issued a receipt No.823 for Rs.120/- which is only for Ironing/pressing. On 18.10.2014 the O.P. delivered the sarees and other clothes to the complainant. Further complainant found that the sarees and blouses are totally spoilt/messed with different colours and its totally unusable.

3.     The complainant immediately filed a complaint via e-mail dated 19.10.2014 to the O.P. contending that the sarees/blouses were given for ironing /pressing but the O.P. has washed the sarees/blouses with other clothes resulting spoilt/messed with different colors. Further O.P. failed and neglected to respond either to the complaint to the outlet or to the email, the act of the O.P. is totally illegal, inconsistent and there is a total deficient of service by the O.P.  The value of the saree was worth more than Rs.65,000/- and due to his illegal act and action of the O.P. the entire sarees are waste and became unusable resulting in loss to the complainant. Further the complainant caused a legal notice to the O.P. on 2.12.2014 calling upon them to compensate for the total damage of the sarees. Hence this complaint.

4.      Upon issuance of notice, O.P serving of notice did not appear in order to contest the case and thereon O.P. is proceeded to place exparte.

5.     To substantiate the above case, the complainant has filed the affidavit evidence along with documents.  We have heard the arguments.

6.     On the basis of pleadings of the complainant, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-

                                (A)    Whether the complainant has proved

                        deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

(B)    Whether the complainant is entitled to the

         relief prayed for in the complaint?

(C)    What order?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (A):  Affirmative.

POINT  (B): Partly Affirmative.

POINT (C):  As per the final order

for the following:

REASONS

POINT (A):-

8.     On perusal of the averments made in the complaint  and also on perusal of the receipt dated 16.10.2014 it is an undisputed  fact that the complainant had given her sarees to the O.P., but on perusal of the receipt it is not clear whether the said sarees were given for dry clean or for ironing. On perusal of the copy of the complaint form it discloses that the complainant had given the sarees for ironing. As per the saying of the complainant due to the act of the O.P the color of the said sarees in question was spoiled and not  in usable condition. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant filed her affidavit evidence and in the evidence she has reiterated all the facts alleged in the complaint.  However, inspite of service of notice the O.P. for the reasons best known to him did not appear before the Forum to answer the claim of the complainant.  Hence all the allegations made in the complaint remained unchallenged one. The O.P. ought to have approached the Forum against the service of summons but did not do so and hence a point of suspicion and presumptions of spoiled the sarees in question.  Whereas it is worth to note that, though complainant alleged regarding the defective service of the O.P. but did not produce any bill in order to ascertain the sarees in question. More so, the complainant also got issued the legal notice to the O.P. but the O.P. in his reply notice contended that, the sarees in question were not expensive as claimed by the complainant.  It is also admitted that, the said sarees and blouses were totally spoiled and messed with different colors and very unusable.  Further contended that, if at all there were any color fading, the same was due to poor material of the sarees of your client and is just a manufacturing defect and hence he is not accountable for the same. Furthermore on perusing the bill dated 16-10-2014 issued by the O.P and it discloses that amount paid is Rs 120/- for 2 sarees and 2 blouse and the quantity is shown 3+1. Hence the bill amount itself depict that, the sarees in question given only for ironing but the O.P without the consent of the complainant dry cleaned the sarees resulting in change in colour. Hence complainant righty contended that, sarees were given for ironing. It is note worthy to mentioned that without any base how can the O.P. contended that the sarees consists of manufacturing defect and the fading of the colour is very unusable. The very contention raised by the O.P in his notice shows that, to escape the liability he himself judging having no authority that the sarees in question are consisting of manufacturing defect without any  basis.

9.     The allegations made in the complaint remained unchallenged due to non-appearance of the O.P, on the basis of the available evidence on record we are of the considered opinion that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as he himself admitted that the sarees in question and its fading of color is very unusable and consisting of the manufacturing defect.  In these back drop of facts, the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Accordingly we answered Point No.(A) in the affirmative.

Point No.(B):

10.   As we noted supra while discussing Point No.(A) and it is an established fact that the complainant had given the sarees in question to the O.P. and ultimately when the complainant received back the said sarees in question noted that, there was a de-colouring of sarees  as a result of which sarees were spoiled and not in usable condition.  The complainant did not provide the bills of the sarees and also not stated in her complaint when she was purchased the sarees.  In the absence of these important points it is not possible to ascertain the value of the sarees in question to award damages to the complainant. In the attendance circumstances of the case, we deem it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and the O.P is liable to pay the same, it will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly we answered the Point No.(B) in the partly affirmative.

POINT (C):

10.   Based on the findings given on the point No.(A) and (B) and in the result we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed in part with cost.

2. The O.P. i.e. Dr. Clean represented by its Chief Executive Officer/authorized signatory is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  

3. Further O.P. is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

4. The O.P is hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and in the event of failure to comply the orders, the O.P is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the realization of the amount and submit the compliance report to this forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 14^th Day of March 2016)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

*Rak