By. Sri. A. S. Subhagan, Member:-

            This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            2.  Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant had purchased some dresses from the Opposite Party of which some were returned without using them, on 07.04.2023.  As replacement, a handloom cotton saree costing Rs.2,045/- was given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant on the same day itself.  The Opposite Party ensured that the saree was of good quality, which could be long lasting and could be washed and used, as it is made of cotton.  But on washing, after its first use, the colour of the saree faded and wrinkled.  This matter was informed to the Opposite Party who agreed to cure the defect and took custody of the saree from the Complainant.  After three weeks, it was returned to the Complainant saying that the defect was cured.  But, on use, the border of the saree wrinkled and it was wrinkled in toto.  Afterwards, when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party said that this saree has only this much of guarantee and added that the Opposite Party has no further responsibility in this regard.

            3.  According to the Complainant the Opposite Party has sold a low quality saree to the Complainant and hence the Complainant could not use it due to the deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party and hence the Complainant has approached the Commission with the following prayers

1. To direct the Opposite Party to take back the saree and to return the cost of Rs.2,045/- together with interest @ 12% from the date of its purchase
2. To direct the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- and
3. To direct the Opposite Party to pay cost of this complaint.

4.  On getting summons from the Commission, Opposite Party appeared and filed version, the contents of which are as follows:-

The Complainant had purchased a handloom cotton saree bearing cost of Rs.2,045/- in exchange for a previously bought saree worth Rs.890/- on 07.04.2023. Complainant asked for a better costlier saree which can be used for special occasions and not the one for daily use as mentioned in the petition. Handloom cotton sarees can be used daily nevertheless but it has to be maintained accordingly. Handloom cotton sarees are made with fine cotton yarn with no polyster mixing higher the polyster content lesser will be the wrinkle. The cotton material will have wrinkle post washing but will be restored to its original form post ironing. To have the saree retain its stiffness and freshness, use of fabric stiffener is recommended When Complainant came back to us. The only complaint she mentioned was that the saree has wrinkle post washing. There was no complaint about colour. We advised her to use fabric stiffener and iron. Complainant came back after few days yelling at us stating the wrinkle is not leveled. The saree was not even ironed. The Opposite Party took saree from the Complainant and the Opposite Party personally washed it with fabric stiffener and ironed the same. Opposite Party informed Complainant the next day to come and collect the saree but Complainant came with her husband a week later. The saree was as fresh as new and even her husband Mr. Kelappa Kurup asked Complainant in front of us what exactly is the problem, the saree look as fresh as it was bought. They left, but Complainant was hesitant and not happy despite saree being in perfect condition. She wanted the saree to be returned at any cost. Complainant came back a week later saying saree has wrinkle post washing. To which Opposite Party responded saying that it’s not a complaint. Handloom cotton sarees made of pure yarn will have wrinkle post washing and can be restored to its original form when ironed after washing with fabric stiffener. Complainant became furious once again. Complainant yelled at Opposite Party in front of the customers and spoke in a manner defaming Opposite Party and the quality of goods. The Issue as we perceive is that Complainant does not have the experience or know how of how to maintain a handloom cotton saree which is not our fault. Despite our repeated advice Complainant was reluctant to learn the same. Hence the Opposite Party requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.  Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant, Ext.A1 and MO-1 were marked from her side and she was examined as PW1.   From the side of Opposite Party, Chief affidavit was filed MO-2 – MO-5 were marked and one Darsan Prasad, Proprietor of Opposite Party firm was examined as OPW1.  The Complainant was finally heard on 11.09.2024.

6.  Considering the facts of the case, evidence adduced, Exhibits produced and marked Commission raised the following points for deciding the case.

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party…?
2. If so, relief and cost…?

7.  Point No.1:-  The case of the Complainant is that she had purchased a cotton saree from the Opposite Party on 07.04.2023 and on using it, it wrinkled and the colour was faded on washing it as the quality of the product was low.  The Complainant states that she had approached the Opposite Party and complained about the issue but it was not cured, which is deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party for which the Complainant has approached the Commission praying for getting refund of the price of the saree, compensation and cost of the complaint.  But the Opposite Party contents that the product was made up of fine cotton, the Opposite Party had advised the Complainant to use fabric stiffener and ironing.  According to the Opposite Party the Complainant had failed to do so.  The product purchased by the Complainant was not denied by the Opposite Party not its price. It was marked as MO-1.  Other sarees produced by the Opposite Party were marked as MO-2 to MO-5.  The MO-1 was seen washed and some wrinkles were also seen on the MO-1.  In cross-examination, PW1 has deposed that “Npfnhv Ds­¶p ]dªt¸mÄ C\nsbm¶pw sN¿m³ Ignbnsöpw sIm­v s]mbvt¡m F¶pamWv ]dªXv”.   In cross-examination, she has deposed that “cotton kmcn ap³]pw D]tbmKn¨n«p­v.  B kmcnIÄ   hand wash BWv sNbvXpsIm­ncp¶Xv.  C¯c¯nepff Npfnthm D]tbmKn¡m³ ]äm¯ hn[tam Bbn«nÔ.  From her deposition, it is revealed that she had experience and is aware of using cotton sarees.  In cross-examination, the Opposite Party deposed that “Iron sNbvXv D]tbmKn¡pt¼mÄ Npfnhp­mIp¶Xn\pff ]cnlmcw Rm³ ]dªp sImSp¯n«nÔ.  “MO-1 to MO-5 material quality H¶p Xs¶bmWv. MO-2 to MO-5  Â thread count IpdhmWv”.  From this statement of the Opposite Party, it is revealed that MO-1 and MO-2 to MO-5 are not of the same quality.  The Opposite Party has also deposed in oral deposition that “MO-1 Dw MO-2 Dw X½n H¶c C©v hoXnbn hnXymkap­v.  MO-1 Npfp§nbn«p­v”.  This deposition proves that MO-1 had wrinkled on using it.

8.  From the evidence adduced by the Complainant and Opposite Party and on examining MO-1 with MO-2 to MO-5 Commission finds that there have been wrinkles after using MO-1 by the Complainant which is due to the low quality of the product/MO-1.  Not ensuring good quality of the product sold, amounts to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.  So there has been deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party.  Therefore Point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party.

9.  Point No.2:-  As Point No.2 is proved against the Opposite Party, they are liable to return the price of the product with interest, compensation and cost of the complaint.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is ordered to take back the MO-1 and

1. To refund Rs.2,045/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Forty Five Only) together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the complaint
2. Pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) towards compensation and
3. Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Five Hundred Only) towards cost of this complaint.

The above amounts shall be paid to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order, failing which the above amounts will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this Order till payment.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15^th day of October 2024.

Date of Filing:- 31.05.2023.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Sarojini Amma.                                                       Retired.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

OPW1.          Darshan Prasad.                                                     Business.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Invoice.                                                                     Dt:07.04.2023.

MO-1.            Saree produced by the Complainant.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

MO-2.            Saree produced by the Opposite Party.

MO-3.            Saree produced by the Opposite Party.

MO-4.            Saree produced by the Opposite Party.

MO-5.            Saree produced by the Opposite Party.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-