By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: On 14.9.07 complainant has entrusted some cloth to the respondent for stitching churidar and on the next day itself it was delivered as stitched. But the stitching was not the way as stated by the complainant. It was not suitable and not stitched as per the custom of the petitioner. On 18.9.07 the petitioner has approached the respondent for getting back the churidar, but the respondent wanted to pay the charge and take the churidar. Petitioner has demanded the cost of the cloth but the respondent behaved roughly and wanted to come on 20.8.07 for repayment of the cost of the churidar cloth. But when the petitioner has gone again the respondent thrown the churidar towards the petitioner and insulted. Respondent has not issued receipt for the payment made by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has put a complaint before the Vanitha Cell, Thrissur and the grievance has not settled. The receipt is issued after the complaint in the Vanitha Cell. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The counter is as follows. The complaint is unnecessary and experimental. Petitioner has entrusted to stitch one churidar and it was delivered the very next day after stitching. Petitioner has noticed the fashion and measurements before delivery. The charge of stitching not paid and told that after the marriage function it will pay and taken the churidar. The petitioner had abused the respondent alleging the fact that the respondent has told the people who came to the shop that the petitioner has not paid the stitching charge. The petitioner has boasted the respondent and threatened. At that time petitioner was in the disputed churidar. After this incident petitioner was an impression that the respondent will take legal action against her and so she put a complaint in the Vanitha Cell. There is no irregularity in the measurements. The petitioner has not paid the stitching charge. So the respondent is not liable for the price of churidar, compensation etc. Hence dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. The points for consideration are:<br /> (1) Is there any deficiency in service?<br /> (2) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3 and MO1 and MO2 marked on the part of petitioner and Ext. R1 and R2 on the part of respondent.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1: The definite case of complainant is that there is irregularity in the stitching of MO2 churidar. The cloth purchased for Rs.749/- and given for stitching churidar and that was not according to the churidar given for measurement. But the respondent denied that there is no churidar given for measurement and the body measurements are taken and written in the book kept by the respondent and produced the relevant page 21 is marked as Ext. R2. The ledger is marked as Ext. R1. Marking of Ext. R2 is objected by the counsel for petitioner on the ground that the date shown against the each name are not proper and in this also the date given is not in correct way. In page 18 a date is shown on 8.9.07 and after that in page 21, 21.9.07 date is shown in this disputed measurement. On the next page of 22 also dates are written near to near be 15.9.07 and 25.9.07. These dates are not written in order and not proper. But there is nothing to disbelieve the ledger. So the objection raised is overruled and the document can be taken into evidence. The case of respondent is that there is no churidar given as model for measurement. If this view is accepted, the next step is to consider whether the measurement written in Ext. R2 is tallying with the MO2 churidar. The entire length shown in the book is 42 and we compared the length with the MO2 churidar and there is no 42 inches length in front and back. The chest measurement shown is 32½ and there is a big difference of 38½ inches. In the measurement of neck and width there are slight differences. The measurements are not tallying. So we arrive at a conclusion that the MO2 churidar is not stiched as per the direction given by petitioner. The neck model is shown in Ext. R1 ledger. Hence the measurements not taken as stated by the petitioner is not believable. There is chance of giving MO1 churidar as specimen. It is not at all relevant here because the measurement in the book is admitted by the respondent and which is not tallying with the MO2 churidar. When we compared both the churidar the measurements are not tallying. Hence the deficiency in service is proved.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No2: The service deficiency of respondent is proved. As per Ext. P1 the stitching charge was received by the respondent. There are slight difference in the measurement written in the book and the MO2 churidar. A big difference only in the chest measurement. S o we are inclined to order only the cost of cloth by the respondent. The cost can be seen from the holder as Rs.749/-. <br /> <br /> 7. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return the cost of the cloth of Rs.749/- (Rupees seven hundred and forty-nine only) to the petitioner and the petitioner is directed to retain the MO2 churidar. No order as to cost and compensation. Comply the order within one month. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 19th day of September 2008.<br />