IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of June, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 02/2024 (Filed on 05.01.2024)
Complainant | : | P J Chacko @ James, Room No. 18, Gualbert Bhavan, Kochupulickal, Ettumannoor, Thellakom P.O., Kottayam – 686 630 |
Opposite party | | Proprietor, Linen Basket, Laundry/ Dry Clean, Carithas Junction, Thellakom P.O., Kottayam – 686 630. (By Adv.Vinu M.S) |
ORDER
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant used to give clothes to the opposite party for ironing and dry cleaning. The complainant received a telephone call from the opposite party on 09.12.2023 for collecting the clothes. The complainant visited the opposite party shop on the same day and collected the clothes and also had given 4 clothes for ironing. The staff of the opposite party who delivered the cloths behaved in a negligent manner. When enquired about the bill, the staff informed that the bill amount is ₹ 240/-. The complainant paid ₹ 250/- , when demanded for the balance they promised to keep the balance amount as advance.
Thereafter a staff of the opposite party visited the complainant at his residence and returned the 4 shirts without ironing the shirts. The act of the opposite party in returning the shirts without ironing is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant was forced to give the shirts to another shop for ironing. The complainant suffered much mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite party. This complaint is filed for getting a compensation of ₹ 5,000/- from the opposite party for the mental agony and suffering of the complainant. On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
The version of the opposite party is as follows. The allegation of the complainant that the ironed clothes were delivered on 09.12.2023 in a negligent manner is not true. If it was so, the complainant could not have given four more shirts for ironing at that time. The allegation of the complainant that a staff of the opposite party had tried to return the clothes and misbehaved with the complainant is false. The complainant was only asked to have a decent behaviour towards the women employee of the opposite party shop. All other allegation of the complainant is denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Exhibits A1 and A2. There is no evidence from the side of the opposite party.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- If so, what are the reliefs and coasts?
Point Nos. 1 and 2
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence adduced, it is clear that the complainant had visited the opposite party on 09.12.2023. The complainant had collected 4 shirts after ironing and had given another four shirts for ironing to the opposite party. The complainant paid ₹ 250/- against a bill amount of ₹ 240/- and the staff of the opposite party informed that the balance amount would be taken as advance. The allegation of the complainant is the four shirts were returned by the opposite party without ironing to his place of residence. Ext. A1 is the notice dated 12.12.2023 issued by the complainant to the opposite party alleging that a boy from the opposite party store came to his residence and complained to the Mother Superior and informed the complainant that they would not iron his clothes and the clothes were thrown towards him. The complainant demanded an apology from the boy and to take the cloths back.
Ext. A2 is the reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 23.12.2023. In Ext.A2 the opposite party had alleged that the complainant unnecessarily abused their staff on 09.12.2023 without any provocation. Hence they decided not to entertain complainant’s order anymore in outlets. They returned the complainants cloths without processing, to the place of stay of the complainant. The cloths were handed over to the complainant in the presence of the Mother Superior and other people. They claimed that they never showed any discrimination to any customer and there are no such complainants against them.
It is clear that the complainant had given 4 shirts for ironing to the opposite party shop on 09.12.2023. But vide Ext A2 reply statement, the opposite party admits that the clothes were returned to the complainant at his place of residence without processing. The opposite party is a dry cleaning shop, who is required to provide service to the customers. Even though opposite party alleges that the complainant misbehaved with their staff, no complaint has been seen filed against the complainant before police or any other authorities.
The act of the opposite party in refusing to provide the offered service to the complainant is deficiency in service on their part. The complaint is allowed and we pass the following orders.
- The opposite party is directed to pay ₹ 1000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardships due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of June, 2024
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
Manulal V.S, President Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Copy of the Notice dated 12.12.2023
A2 - Reply Notice dated 23.12.2023
Exhibits from the side of the Opposite Parties :
Nil
By Order,
Assistant Registrar
