BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 94/2010 Filed on 23.03.2010

Dated : 31.07.2010

Complainant:

T. Sudheer, “Sanjana”, Pulimoottuvila, Vedivechankovil, Thiruvananthapuram-695 501.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite party:

International Dry Cleaners & Art Dyers, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 27.07.2010, the Forum on 31.07.2010 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

This complaint has been filed by one Mr. T. Sudheer against International dry cleaners alleging as follows: On 27.01.2010, the complainant had entrusted 2 'dhothis' with big jerries and one dhothi with thread and jerry border for dry cleaning. As per the receipt, the due date was 18.02.2010. Accordingly, complainant went to collect the same, but he was informed that the same is not ready. Again on several other dates the complainant had gone to the opposite party's shop to collect the 'dhothis', but the same has not been returned till now. Furthermore the attitude of the person in charge of the opposite party's shop was very disgusting and the staff were making fun of the complainant. Hence this complaint for refund of the cost of the 'dhothis' along with compensation and costs.

The opposite party accepted notice issued from this Forum and inspite of its acceptance, the opposite party never appeared before the Forum nor have they filed any version contending the allegations levelled against them. Hence opposite party was set exparte.

Complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext. P1 has been marked on his side.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) & (ii):- The receipt No. 9531 issued to the complainant by International dry cleaners & art dyers evidences the fact that the complainant had entrusted total 3 'dhothis' to the opposite party for dry cleaning on 27.01.2010. The grievance of the complainant is that he has not been returned the 'dhothis' till now. Furthermore the complainant has pleaded that, when he had gone to the opposite party's shop on 18.02.2010 for collecting the same, even after confirming the same over phone well in advance on 16.02.2010, the complainant was not returned the same and he had to visit the shop 7 times i.e; on 22.02.2010, 25.02.2010, 03.03.2010, 08.03.2010, 10.03.2010 and on 17.03.2010. The complainant has further pleaded that when he had gone to collect the 'dhothis' on 17.03.2010, he was made to wait, along with his 2 small children in the opposite party's shop where there was no place to sit or drink water, for about 3 hours and he has further sworn that during these hours the staff were making fun of the complainant. The opposite party has not turned up to cross examine the complainant and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.

Ext. P1 is the original receipt. It is true that the opposite party would deliver the items only if original receipt is surrendered. In the instant case, the complainant is still having the original with him which itself reveals that the complainant has not been delivered the items mentioned in the receipt. It is very pathetic to note the attitude of the opposite party to their customers like the complainant. Due to the negligent and callous attitude of the opposite party, the complainant has been made to approach their shop several times for getting his clothes back. The opposite party has neither bothered to appear before the Forum nor has denied the pleadings in the complaint. Hence we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaints. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove the price of the 'dhothis'. But it is a common practice that nobody would save the purchase bills of the items entrusted for dry cleaning anticipating any litigation. Furthermore in Ext. P1, the opposite party has admitted that the firm is responsible for a maximum ten times of the washing charge, if any damage is caused to the article due to the fault of the management. Anyhow, the 'dhothis' according to the complainant were purchased about 6 months ago. So the complainant could use it for that period. Hence after deducting some amount towards its use for the said period, we hereby fix the value of the clothes at Rs. 2,500/-. Due to the deficient act of the opposite party, it is true that the complainant had to go to the shop several times resulting loss of time and money for which we find an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as sufficient. The mental agony and such other sufferings of such a consumer cannot be commuted in terms of money, but he has to be compensated for the same for which we find Rs. 2,000/- as reasonable. The complainant has been forced to approach this Forum for redressal of this grievances due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party for which the complainant is found entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall refund Rs. 2,500/- along with Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of July 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 94/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Original receipt dated 27.01.2010

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb