By Smt. Rajani.P.S, Member:
The complainant’s case is as follows: On 18.4.08 the complainant along with her mother had purchased some fabric items as per bill No.B-4434 from the respondent shop. A churidar material of Rs.1035/- was also included in the above said items. At the time of purchase the complainant asked whether any colour change may happen to the said churidar material after washing, the respondent replied ‘no’ and further stated that for assurance they can give it for dry washing first and after that canwash as usual. But when she had given it for dry cleaning after twice usage the dry cleaning shop showed reluctance to accept it as it will fade after dry washing. Three other dry cleaning shops were also replied the same. She used it only twice without washing and after twice usage the said item showed decolouration. Thereafter she approached the respondent shop without purchase bill. She didn’t find out the purchase bill when she had gone the respondent shop for the first time. Then the respondent replied that they are helpless without purchase bill. But later she approached the respondent with the purchase bill. But the respondent was not willing to do any remedy at this time also. She had spent Rs.150/- as stitching charge for the said churidar. A lawyer notice was sent on 26.12.08. But no remedy so far. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter filed by the respondent is that the complainant was filed on an experimental basis. It is to be proved by the complainant herself that she had purchased a churidar material along with her mother for Rs.1035/- vide bill No.B-4434 from the respondent and the respondent stated that it is better to dry clean first and after that can use it by normal washing. This respondent denies that the dry cleaning centres rejected the said churidar for dry cleaning. It is false that the complainant used it only twice and approached the respondent twice. It is also false and denied by the respondent that she had spent Rs.150/- for stitching charge and no remedy even after sending a lawyer notice. The complaint was filed only to grab money from the respondent. The cost of the churidar is not sure for the complainant as it is written differently in the complaint. The defect for the said clothing was happened only because of her misuse and of using it without washing. The manufacturer of the cloth is not made a party. There is no document to show that Rs.150/- as the stitching charge and hence it is false. The defect was happened only because of the ignorance of the complainant. Hence dismiss with costs.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists Exts. P1 to P3, MO1 and the oral testimony of PW1.
5. Points: The complainant’s case is that she had purchased a churidar set of Rs.1035/- along with other clothings on 18.4.08 from the respondent shop. At the time of purchase the respondent told that the colour of the said item will not change and it is better to dry clean first before normal washing. Believing their words she purchased it and even after twice use without washing the said item showed decolouration. Further when she had given it for dry cleaning the dry cleaners showed reluctance to accept it as it will fade after dry cleaning. When she approached the respondent they were not ready to settle the matter.
6. The respondent denied most of the allegations raised by the complainant in their counter.
7. Ext. P1 would show that on 18.4.08 a churidar set of Rs.1035/- was purchased along with other clothings. The MO1 also shows that the colour of the said churidar showed decolouration in some areas. PW1 deposed that she used the said clothing as per the instructions given by the respondent and when she had given it for dry cleaning they were not willing to even accept it for dry cleaning. From the MO1 it is clear that the item sold by the respondent was a substandard one and it is good for nothing having a colour combination of brown and cream colour as the brown colour spreaded over the cream colour. A churidar item which costs Rs.1035/- will surely be used for special occasions and PW1 also deposed that in the box. She also deposed that she had given it for stitching in Rissice’s stitching centre, Thrissur. The complainant demanded a normal stitching charge and there is nothing to disbelieve the words of the complainant that Rs.150/- was spent for stitching the churidar.
8. The respondent did not adduce any evidence to counter the pleadings of the complainant. So the unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent is proved and the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.
9. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return the cost of the MO1 and also to pay Rs.150/- (Rupees one hundred and fifty only) for the stitching charge, Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for compensation, Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for costs to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the order is not complied within the prescribed time the cost of the MO1 will carry 12% interest from today.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of September 2011.
