By Smt. E. Ayishakutty, Member,
1. Complaint in brief is as follows:- On 24-12-2008 complainant purchased a Wedding Saree from opposite party's textile shop in connection with the marriage of her sisters son for an amount of Rs.3,680/-. The saree was defective. Th boarder and some parts of of its 'Mundani' was torn. The defects were noticed only on the time of wearing the bride on the wedding time itself. It caused very shame to the complainant and accompanied persons who went to the brides house. Then the next day complainant approached opposite party with the defective Saree and asked to replace it. But opposite party refused to replace it and opposite party behaved very cruly towards the complainant. Therefore she filed this petition before the Forum. She prays for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for her public disgrace and financial loss.
2. Opposite party in his version resisted the complainant. Opposite party contents that complainant and other persons come with her thoroughly checked the saree before purchase. So there was no possibility to have damages to it. Opposite party states that after the marriage function complainant approached opposite party and asked him to take back the saree and refund it's price. She offered some reduction rate also. But opposite party refused to take back the used saree. Therefore according to opposite party the complainant purposefully made damages to the saree by cutting the edges of it by using scissiors for creating a case against opposite party and extract money from him. So opposite party is not liable to pay anything to the complainant. Hence complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
3. Complainant filed affidavit and document for evidence. Ext.A1 marked on the side of complainant. She produced the defect alleged saree and it was marked as MO1. Opposite party filed affidavit. No documents produced by the opposite party.
4. Ext.A1 shows that complainant purchased the wedding saree only on 24-12-2008. The said marriage was on 27-12-2008 and complainant approached opposite party for replacement is on 28-12-2008 and she filed petition before the Forum on 29-12-2008. The defect was found out at the first use itself. Complainant states that when she approached opposite party inform the defects of the saree and asking replacement one of the sales girls in opposite party's shop take the saree to the up stair of the shop and cut the damaged parts of 'Mundani' and returned it to the complainant by saying that the damages on the boarder could not rectified. Opposite party's counsel strongly opposed the contention of complainant.
5. On examination of MO1 we find that some places in the boarder of the saree was torn. It seen like cuts using with some sharp objects like scissors etc. Opposite party states that it was made by complainant to allege defects and claim for compensation. NO oral evidence adduced both parties. It is evident that a common person would not like complaints before the Forum without having some grievance to them. A trader must have maintain a good relationship with the customers. Opposite party's textile shop is one of the reputed shop in Malappuram District and so he needs to satisfy the customers. So from the above sayings without considering the merits of the case we order that opposite party pay a megre amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant for redressing her grievance.
6. In the result the complaint partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant along with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. MO1 shall be returned to the complainant after appeal time on making an application for the same by her. Dated this 22nd day of July, 2009.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and MO1 Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Bill for Rs.4,447.75 from opposite party to complainant. MO1 : Saree. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
......................AYISHAKUTTY. E
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
......................MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN | | 
