CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

                                             Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.255/10

 

Thursday the 28^th day of April, 2011

 

Petitioner                                              : Ajith S.

                                                               Pengattu house,

                                                               Kumaranalloor PO,

                                                               Kottayam.      

 

 

                                                        Vs.

Opposite party                                     : Manager,

                                                             Narmada Textiles

                                                             PO Box No.144,

                                                             Kottayam.

                                                             (Adv.Arun.R)

 

                                                            ORDER

 

 

            The case of the petitioner, filed on 12-10-10, is as follows:-

 

            Petitioner purchased some articles from the opposite party textile shop on 05/08/10. After purchase it was seen that the pant purchased for his brother-in-law, who was working abroad, was not fit for him. On 8/10/10 petitioner along with his friends one Suresh and Kuriakose approach the opposite party and intimated the opposite party that the pant is not fit for his brother-in-law. Opposite party offered a replacement of the ‘32’ size pant. On verification of petitioner has not seen any ‘ 34’ size pants in the textile shop of the opposite party, so he request for refund of the price of the pant. Opposite party has not refund the amount. Hence the complaint.

 

 Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party his business establishment is functioning in high reputation for the last 40 years. Opposite party admitted the purchase of the petitioner on 5/8/10. According to the opposite party, whether the purchase was done by the petitioner is for his brother-in-law is not known to them. On 8/10/10 petitioner came to the textile shop and demanded for replacement of the pant. The petitioner does not complain anything about the quality and price of the goods so purchased. But after 2 months of its purchase, the petitioner came to the shop stating that the pant which he purchased along with other articles was not fit for the person for whom it was purchased and therefore it is to be replaced. Since the purchaser said that the size was not suitable for the person concerned this opposite party allowed him to select another suitable material from the shop. Petitioner there after stated that since no suitable material was found in the shop, the price should be refunded. Opposite party said that it is the custom of the shop and there is no practice of returning the money. According to the opposite party at that time opposite party’s textile were having large collections of 34 size pant or the same material and price. But among the pants available, the complaint willfully refused to take the same type of material from the opposite party’s textile. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. So opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

 

 

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of the deposition of the petitioner was PW1 and the affidavit of the opposite party.

Point No.1      

            The crux of the case of the petitioner is that one pant which was purchased, by the petitioner from the opposite party textile, along with other articles was not suitable for the person to whom it was purchased, so the petitioner wants refund of price of the purchased articles. Petitioner has no allegation with regard to the quality and price of the goods so purchased. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in non- refund of the price of the material amounts to deficiency in service

            “Deficiency” is defined in Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to the performed by a person in pursuance of contract or in relation to any service.

            Here, petitioner has no complaints with regard to the quality or price of the goods purchased. Further more during cross examination petitioner himself stated that he has no complaints with regard to the behavior of the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that admittedly the article was returned after 2 months of its purchase. Being a business concern it has to submit monthly return to the sales tax department with respect of the sale of the article in the return submitted by them. It has to be stated in the sales tax return the articles sold and the price so received. So it is highly unjustifiable for the Fora to direct the opposite party to refund the money of an article purchased 2 months before.   So point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the finding in point no.1.   Petitioner is directed to produce the articles to the opposite party textile, opposite party shall replace the sold pant with a brand new pant or else any other articles of same worth found suitable by the petitioner. Petition is disposed accordingly.

 

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of April, 2011

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President              Sd/-    

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                                Sd/-                

 

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                                Sd/-                

 

 

 

Ext.A1-copy of the bill

 

PW1-Ajith S

 

Nil

 

By Order,