CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 31/01/2015
CC /16/2015
P.V.Viswanathan,
Viswavihar, Andimadam,
Kadukkamkunnam P.O, : Complainant
Palakkad
(Party in Person)
Vs
Manager, Kalyan Silks,
R.S.Road, Opp.Town Railway Station,
Palakkad.678 001 : Opposite party
(By Adv.M.S.Skaria)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a churidar cloth on 21/12/2014 from the opposite party shop for an amount of Rs.675/- believing the words of the opposite party that the material of the cloth is cotton. Thereafter he stitched and used for once and came to know that the same is not cotton. He also enquired about it to the tailor who had stitched the cloth who also said that the cloth is not cotton. When the cloth was washed the colour got released. Then the complainant approached the opposite party so as to convinced about the same. But the opposite party’s approach was against decency and morals. He was asked to wait for a long period of time. The complainant alleges that the above act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and he is entitled for compensation. Hence he had approached before this Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.675/- being the price of the material along with Rs.200/- as stitching charge and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him.
The notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed version denying all the allegations in the complaint except the fact that the cloth was purchased from them. The opposite party had stated that there is a specific policy in their institution that no salesman should induce any customer to buy any product by making false statement. Moreover, no salesman is entitled to get any commission on the basis of the sales made by them. The complainant had taken so much time is selecting the material and the allegation that the opposite party made the complainant believe that the cloth is cotton are all false and fabricated. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.
The complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Opposite party filed application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. The complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1 and A2 was marked . Churidar was marked as MO1. Opposite party has also filed the chief affidavit. Complainant filed application seeking permission to cross examine the opposite party. Opposite party was cross examined as DW1. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite
Party?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
ISSUES 1 & 2
When the complainant was cross examined he had deposed that വസ്ത്രം വാങ്ങുന്നതിനു മുൻപ് അതു പരിശോധിച്ച് തൃപ്തി വന്നതിൻറെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലാണ് വാങ്ങിച്ചത്. എനിക്ക് cotton തുണി നോക്കിയാൽ മനസിലാവും. അതുവരെ ഞാനോ, ഭാര്യയോ തുണി തുറന്നു നോക്കിയിരുന്നില്ല. Sales girl തുറന്നു നോക്കാൻ അനുവദിച്ചില്ല . ഈ കാര്യം അന്യായത്തിൽ പറയാതിരിക്കാൻ കാരണമൊന്നുമില്ല. തുന്നിയ ഉടനെ തന്നെ ഇത് cotton തുണിയല്ല എന്ന കാര്യം ഞാൻ എതിർ കഷി സ്ഥാപനത്തിൽ ചെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നു. തയ്യൽക്കാരൻ ഇത് cotton തുണിയല്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ ഉടനെ തന്നെ എതിർ കഷി സ്ഥാപനത്തിൽ പോയി. cotton ആണ് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് എന്നെ തെറ്റിധരിപ്പിച്ചതാണ് എതിർകഷിയുടെ ഭാഗത്തുനിന്നും service-ൽ ഉണ്ടായ വീഴ്ച്ച. വെള്ളത്തിൽ ഇട്ടപ്പോൾ മുഴുവൻ കളറും ഇളകിപോയി . അത് quality കുറവാണ് എന്ന് കാണിക്കാൻ നടപടിയെടുക്കാത്തതിനു കാരണമൊന്നുമില്ല. The complainant admits that he had the knowledge of understanding the difference between cotton and other materials. During cross examination he had admitted that he had purchased the material after satisfying about the same. Later on the complainant contradicts from his own statement that the sales girl of the opposite party never allowed the complainant to “examine the cloth material” which is in dispute. The complainant had not stated the above facts in the complaint. According to the complainant it was the tailor who confirmed that the clothes he had brought is not of cotton. He had not examined the tailor to prove the same. His allegation is that when he use the material and on washing the same the cloths started releasing the colour. But the complainant had not taken any steps to prove that the quality of the cloth is bad. His only allegation was that the salesgirl made him believe that the cloth is cotton. There is no evidence before the Forum to prove that the cloth produced and marked as MO1 before the Forum is not cotton. His only allegation against the opposite party is that he was insulted by the opposite party, when he had approached them with the complaint. The opposite party ought to have convinced the complainant, that, they are unable to take back the cloth since it was stitched. Instead, by their behaviour, they had dragged the consumer, who being a senior citizen, to the Forum. Aggrieved by their conduct the consumer was constrained to file this complaint. The opposite party should have dealt this silly complaints then and there so that, the consumers will not be dragged to the Forum for silly reasons. They are bound to attend the genuine complaints of every customer and gave proper explanation for their complaints. Without doing so, the opposite party had committed deficiency of service on their part. Apart from deficiency in service opposite party had also committed grave disrespect towards the complainant who is also a senior citizen.
In view of the above circumstances, we allow the complaint. Hence we direct the opposite party to return an amount of Rs.675/- (Rupees Six hundred and seventy five only) being the price of the cloth purchased along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered along with Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which, the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the compensation amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 1st day of December, 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Original Bill of Kalyan Silks, Palakkad Rs.675/- dtd 21/12/2014
Ext.A2- Photocopy of Regd.notice dtd 15/01/2015 and original postal receipts
MO1- Churidar
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1- Viswanathan.P.V
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1-Biju
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- as cost.
