KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 254/2010 JUDGMENT DATED:03..06..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT 1. The Proprietor, National Dress Cleaners, Near Uma Maheswara Temple, Main Road, Kollam. : APPELLANTS 2. Owner, National Dress Cleaners, Mulangadakam Branch, Near Mulangadakam Temple, Kuthirapanthiyil Bldg., Thirumullavaram.P.O, Kollam. (By adv. Sri.Manju Prasad) Vs. K.Rajagopala Pillai, Ushas, SMRA, 105, : RESPONDENT Thirumullavaram.P.O, Kollam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC:175/08 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards the price of the sari that was damaged in the dry-cleaning process and compensation of Rs.500/- and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The matter is with respect to the damage caused to the sari entrusted to the appellants for dry cleaning. After getting back the sari later when it was taken for wearing it was found that it is full of different colours. The damage was occasioned during the cleaning process at the establishment of the opposite party. The matter was intimated to the appellants and the sari returned to the appellants. Although he had agreed to settle the matter subsequently retreated. 3. On the other hand the opposite parties/appellants have contended that it is on account of personal grudge due to non reduction of dry cleaning charges as requested by the complainant that the complaint has been filed. It is also contended that the complainant had verified that there was no defect in the sari and it is thereafter the sari was taken to his residence. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4. 5. The Forum has considered the evidence tendered by the complainant. It is noted by the Forum that PW1 has mentioned in the cross-examination that he has not opened the folds of the sari after getting it back from the opposite parties at the shop of the opposite parties. On a perusal of the order of the Forum, we find that there is no patent illegality in appreciation of the evidence. It is also to be noted that the opposite parties have not stepped into the witness box and adduced evidence in support of his contention that it is on account of personal grudge that the complaint has been filed. In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed in-limine. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
