IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2013
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 58/2013 (Filed on 08.05.2013)
Between:
P.V. Lolamma, aged 60,
Rajappan,
Kedaram (Vazhakkalayil),
Kadapra.P.O., Kumbanad,
Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Complainant
And:
1. Malayalam Power Laundry &
Dry Cleaning Co. (Pvt.)Ltd.,
Kumbanad, Post Box No. 34,
Mattath Building,
Pin – 689 547.
2. Managing Director,
-do. –do.
3. Manager,
Super Bubbles,
Laundry & Dry Cleaning,
Kumbanad.
(By Adv. K.M. Alexander) …. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: 1st opposite party is accompany and the 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party is the authorized franchisee of the 1st opposite party company. Opposite parties are doing the business of dry cleaning. Opposite parties made advertisement stating that all dress materials will be dry cleaned in good quality by using modern technology. Believing this advertisement, complainant had given 11 items of clothes on 12 11 2012 with the 3rd opposite party for dry washing and for that 3rd opposite party issued bill No.38392 & 38393 to the complainant.
3. The dress materials entrusted with the opposite parties are good quality, which is purchased for using for the auspicious occasion of the marriage of complainant’s son and purchased from Ernakulam Jayalekshmi & Seematti. Even though, the delivery date mentioned in the bill is 19.11.2012, the clothes were made ready for delivery only on 28.11.2012. While on delivery, complainant found that among the dress materials the colour of a silk sari having a cost of Rs. 26,900/- is totally faded and the stains are not removed from a silk shirt and kasavu dhoti. Immediately the complainant made her complaint regarding this defects to the staff of the 3rd opposite party and the complainant refused to take delivery of the clothes. The staff of the 3rd opposite party assured that matter will be informed to the 3rd opposite party. But thereafter there was no positive response from the part of the opposite parties in spite of the complainant’s telephone calls with the opposite parties.
4. Opposite parties dry cleaned the clothes without giving proper care, and done it unscientifically without any standard and without using proper technology and proper materials. Because of the same the costly dress materials were damaged. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for getting the same quality new dress materials or for getting the market value of the dress materials of Rs. 6,32,242/- along with compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.
5. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed a common version with the following main contentions. According to them, 3rd opposite party is not a franchisee of the 1st opposite party. Dress materials given for dry cleaning may not be of superior quality. They were cheap materials and inferior in quality which shed colour when soaked in water. Opposite parties are not aware about its price and from where the dress materials were purchased hence it is a matter to be proved by documentary evidence. On the delivery date complainant did not came to the shop for taking delivery of dry cleaned clothes. The complaint that the stains on the silk shirt and kasavu dhothi had not gone after dry wash is false. There is no dirt on the same. Complainant came to the shop and made a complaint with regard to the loss of the colour in a saree and did not take back the entire clothes given for dry wash and also did not paid the bills. Opposite parties contacted complainant many times to take back her dry washed clothes by paying the bill, but she did not turned up.
6. The damage occurred to the saree is not because of the opposite parties deficiency in service but due to the inferior quality of the saree for which manufacturer is liable. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions printed in the bill. As per Clause (2) in the bill opposite parties shall not be responsible for colour change or shrinkage of clothes. Complainant had expressed her willingness to abide by the terms and conditions printed on the bills at the time giving the dress materials to 3rd opposite party.
7. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. No mental agony is caused to the complainant by any act of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
9. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DW1, Ext.A1 series, A2 series, M.O.1 series and B1 to B3. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
10. The Point:- Complainant’s case is that she had given costly dresses to the opposite parties for dry washing. But when it was ready for delivery after dry wash one of the saree worth Rs.26,900/- seen damaged due to total colour fading and the stains on one kasavu dhoti and silk shirt are not seen removed. Complainant made complaint to the opposite party. But they have not turned up. The damages are occurred due to the unscientific methods used by the opposite parties in the dry cleaning. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service for which they are liable to the complainant.
11. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination along with certain documents and the dress materials in question. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 series and Ext.A2 series and the dress materials are marked as M.O.1 series. Ext.A1 is the bill No.38392 dated 12.11.2012 issued by opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A1(a) is the bill No.38393 dated 12.11.2012 issued by opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A2 series are the bills issued from Jayalekshmi & Seematti, Ernakulam. M.O.1 series are the dress materials in question. The disputed dress materials and other dress materials were brought by the opposite party on the basis of the order in I.A.56/13 and as per the memo dated 18.07.2013 all the materials except the disputed materials are received by the complainant. The retained and the disputed materials are M.O.1 series.
12. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the dress materials given for dry washing is not of superior quality. They are cheap material and inferior in quality which is the reason for colour spreading and colour fading when socked in water. Complainant refused to take back the dry washed dress materials on the delivery date. The damage occurred to the saree is not because of opposite parties deficiency but due to the manufacturing defect. Hence opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
13. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, Manager of the opposite parties filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1. Out of the 3 documents one document was marked as Ext.B1 through PW1 and the remaining 2 documents are marked as Exts.B2 and B3 through DW1. Ext.B1 is the memo dated 18.07.2013 filed by the complainant before the Forum for getting the undisputed clothes in the custody of Forum brought by the opposite parties as per the Order in I.A.56/2013. Ext.B2 is the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of opposite parties authorizing DW1 to appear for opposite parties. Ext.B3 is the authorization letter issued by the company in the name of the manager Mr. Sajan Chacko, DW1 to represent the company in this case.
14. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that both parties have no dispute with regard to the damages and defects of M.O.1 series dress materials. The only one dispute which is to be considered is how the damages and defects sustained to M.O.1 series articles and who is responsible for the same. According to the complainant, the damage and defects were caused during the dry cleaning process of the opposite parties and opposite parties are responsible for it. Whereas the contention of the opposite party is that the colour spreading and colour fading occurred on the saree is not due to any fault of the opposite parties. But it is due to the inferior quality of the saree and the stain on the shirt is not removable by dry cleaning due to the nature of the stains found on the shirt.
15. In view of the above said contentions of the parties, we have examined M.O.1 series dress materials and on a keen examination of the blouse it is seen that the colour of the blouse is spread on the tag attached to the blouse. The said sheding/spreading of colour to the tag attached to the blouse clearly shows that the cloth material of the blouse lacks quality. The case of the complainant is that the same cloth material of the blouse is used for the border work of the saree. So it is quite natural that the colour of the cloth used for the border work will be spread to the saree while cleaning or dry cleaning as colour sheding is found on the blouse also. In this contest, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not taken any steps for proving the quality of the cloth materials in spite of the specific pleading and the contention of the opposite party that the quality of the material was the cause of colour spreading/sheding. The alleged colour fading of the saree is also a disputed matter. In that respect also the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the material of the saree is having good quality. Moreover, the complainant is not entitled to say that she had no bindingness on the terms and conditions of the opposite parties printed in the front page of their receipt in which it is clearly stated that opposite parties are not responsible for colour change and shrinkage of clothes.
16. In the circumstances, we cannot find any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party in respect of the colour spreading and colour fading of the saree in this case.
17. Then comes to the dispute with regard to the stain on the shirt. In this connection, the complainant’s allegation is that opposite parties advertisements to the effect that any kinds of stains will be removed prompted the complainant to entrust the shirt to the opposite party. But the case of the opposite party is that certain stains are not removable due to the nature of the stains. But the complainant has not produced the advertisement of the opposite parties. So in this regard also we could not take a conclusion against the opposite parties.
18. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to find any deficiency in service against the opposite parties alleged by the complainant for want of better evidence. In the circumstance, this complaint is not allowed.
19. However, the facts and the nature of the case goes to the presumption that the quality of the material may be the reason for the damages of the saree in question. If so, complainant have a better case against the suppliers and the manufacturers of the product in question. So this order will not prejudice the right of the complainant for a fresh complaint against them.
20. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 12th day of August, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Lolamma
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Bill No.38392 dated 12.11.2012 issued by opposite parties
to the complainant.
A1(a) : Bill No.38393 dated 12.11.2012 issued by opposite parties
to the complainant.
A2 series (A2 to A2(d)) : Bills issued from Jayalekshmi &
Seematti, Ernakulam.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Sajan Chacko
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Memo filed by the complainant before the Forum for getting
the undisputed clothes in the custody of Forum.
B2 : Minutes of the meeting of the board of directors opposite parties.
B3 : Authorization letter issued by the company in the name of the
manager Mr. Sajan Chacko.
Material Objects:
M.O.1 series : Dress Materials.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) P.V. Lolamma, Rajappan, Kedaram (Vazhakkalayil),
Kadapra.P.O., Kumbanad, Thiruvalla Taluk, Pathanamthitta. (2) Malayalam Power Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co. (Pvt.)Ltd.,
Kumbanad, Post Box No. 34, Mattath Building, Pin – 689 547.
(3) Managing Director, -do. –do.
(4) Manager, Super Bubbles, Laundry & Dry Cleaning,
Kumbanad.
(5) The Stock File.
