BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No. 473/2004 Filed on 23.12.2004 Dated : 16.06.2008 Complainants: 1.Sabarinath, S/o Suseelan, Karunakara Nilayam, Chempazhanthy, Pangappara, Thiruvananthapuram. 2.Sasi, S/o Gowthamadas, Sree Bhavan, Chempazhanthy, Pangappara, Thiruvananthapuram. Opposite parties: 1.Manager, Clean Plus, Opposite SBT, Sreekariyam, Thiruvananthapuram. 2.Managing Director, Ananthapuri Apparel Services Pvt. Ltd., KINFRA International Apparel Parks, Thiruvananthapuram 695 586. (By adv. K.S. Gopinathan Nair) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30.06.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 21.05.2008, the Forum on 16.06.2008 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER The facts of the case are as follows: The 1st complainant in this case is Mr. Sabarinath and 2nd complainant is his brother Sasi. The 1st opposite party is Clean Plus dry cleaners and 2nd opposite party is Ananthapuri Apparel Services. The 2nd complainant had entrusted the 1st opposite party for dry cleaning 1st complainant's two silk shirts and a kasavu dothy on 24.11.2004. These dresses were the wedding dress of the 1st complainant. His marriage was on 17.11.2004. The 1st opposite party agreed to deliver the items on 02.12.2004 and they issued bill in favour of the 2nd complainant. On that day the complainant approached the 1st opposite party to receive the dresses. But the opposite party did not deliver it and told him to come on 06.12.2004. But on that day when he approached the opposite party to collect the dresses, it was found that the dresses were totally damaged. Immediately the complainant filed a complaint before Medical College Police Station against the 1st opposite party. Then the 1st opposite party agreed before the police that he will settle the matter. On that ground the police did not take any case. Thereafter though the complainant approached the opposite parties several times to settle the matter they were not ready for settlement. Hence the complainant filed this complaint. The opposite parties remain exparte. Complainant has been examined as PW1 and he had produced 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. Points to be considered: (i)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs? (iii)Whether the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable? Points (i) to (iii):- In this case the opposite parties are exparte. Complainant has produced the bills issued by the 1st opposite party when the complainant had entrusted the dresses with the opposite parties. The bills were marked as Ext. P1 and P2. As per the bill, due date was on 02.12.2004. But on that day the opposite party did not deliver the items. And thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party on 06.12.2004 for getting the items. But the dresses were found totally damaged due to the defective dry cleaning method of the opposite party. And immediately the complainant filed a complaint before the Medical College Police Station against the opposite party. Before the Medical College Police Station the 1st opposite party had agreed to settle the matter. The complainant has produced the copy of the complaint which he had filed before the police. But the opposite party did not settle the matter accordingly. The complainant stated that the silk shirt and kasavu dothi were his wedding dresses. He has produced the Ext. P4 bill showing that the prices of the shirts are Rs. 1095/- and Rs. 1100/-. The complainant also produced the Ext. P5 bill of the kasavu dothi which is for Rs. 1530/-. The complainant was examined as PW1. In this case the complainant has succeeded to prove his case. For the foregoing reasons stated above this forum finds that there is deficiency in service from the part of 1st opposite party and he is liable to return the price of the dresses which were damaged due to the negligence of the 1st opposite party. The complainant has no case against the 2nd opposite party. Hence the 2nd opposite party is exempted from any liability. The complainant alleges that due to the negligence of the 1st opposite party his wedding dresses were irrecoverably damaged. The lose of the wedding dress has very seriously affected the complainant, for him it was very important one and for the mental agony of the complainant the opposite party is liable to compensate. In the result an order is passed as follows: The 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 3730/- to the complainants as the price of the two silk shirts and one kasavu dhothi and also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost. Time for compliance two months failing which execution proceedings can be taken. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th June 2008. G. SIVAPRASAD, President. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No.473/2004 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Sabarinath II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Cash Bill No. F -5565 dated 24.11.2004 issued by the 1st opposite party. P2 - Cash Bill No. F -5565 dated 24.11.2004 issued by the 1st opposite party. P4 - Cash Bill No. 296 dated 13.11.2004. P5 - Cash Bill No. 2994 original issued by Kasavukada. III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A ......................Sri G. Sivaprasad
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
