D.O.F – 24-12-2012
D.O.O – 16-01-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President
Smt.Sona Jayaraman.K: Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian: Member
Dated this, the 16th day January 2014
CC.No.431/2012
Faisal.K.,
Kallinkeel (House),
Kottarathupara, : Complainant
Azhikode(PO),
Kannur – 670009.
(Rep.by Adv.K. Sahadevan)
M/s. Ella,
Ladies Wear Shop,
Global Village,
Bank Road, : Opposite Party
Kaannur – 1.
(Re. byAdv.Asha.M.K.)
O R D E R
Sri. Babu Sebastian, Member
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to repay `2,900 as the of the churidar together with `10,000 as compensation of the complainant.
This case of the complainant is brief as follows:
The complainant has purchased a ready made churidar for his wife from the opposite Party’s shop on 10-10-2012 and he had paid `2900 as its price. As per the retail invoice of the opposite party, it is non-washable one and also given assurance that there will not be any change in the print and churidar is made by using high quality materials. Thereafter complainant’s wife used the churidar on two occasions and shockingly found that its front and armpit sides damaged due to its low quality. On 12-11-2012 the complainant went to the opposite party’s shop and showed the damage of the churidar and requested either to replace or to repay then price of the churidar. But opposite party was not ready for that thereafter complainant contacted the opposite party several times with same demand but opposite party did not take care to respond so as to refund the amount or replace the churidar. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part the of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
After receiving the complaint Forum sent notice to opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version contenting that complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party demanded strict proof with respect to the purchase of churidar from the opposite party’s shop. Opposite party suspect that the churidar was subjected to wet wash by ignoring the instructions given to the complainant, The opposite party denies entire allegation made in the complaint except that on 12-11-2012 complainant approached the opposite party’s shop and showed the defective churidar and purchase bill. Thereafter complainant has not come to opposite party’s shop with the same demand. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party.
On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Ext. A1 marked on his side.
Issues 1 to 3
The complainant’s case is that he has purchased a ready made churidar from the opposite party’s shop for an amount of ` 2,900. Ext. A1 shows that opposite party has issued a bill for the same amount. The complainant used the churidar only twice and then it became damaged. The complainant approached the opposite party’s shop several time and requested to replace the churidar or refund the amount. But opposite party did not pay any heed to redress the grievance of the complainant. Ext. A1 documents itself is sufficient to prove that complainant has purchased the churidar from the opposite party’s shop. Opposite party filed version denying the pleadings of the complainant. But the pleadings of the opposite party in the version cannot be considered as evidence. The opposite party did not adduce oral evidence in order to rebut the evidence adduced by the complainant. The opposite party admitted in their version that complainant approached the opposite party’s shop and showed the damaged churidar. The opposite party also suspect that churidar was subjected to wet wash by ignoring the instruction of the opposite party. So this admission proves that the churidar was in damaged condition and Ext.A1 was the bill issued by the opposite party. He has stated nothing about the remedial measures he has taken. Thus we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party in treating the complainant and thereby liable for compensating for the sufficiency of the complainant. Hence in the interest of justice, opposite party has to refund the cost of the churidar ` 2,900 together with `1000 as compensation and `500 as a cost of the litigation. The issues 1 to 3 answered in favour of the complainant. Order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite party to refund the cost of the churidar `2,900(Rupees two thousand and Nine hundred only) together with `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and ` 500 (Rupees five hundred only) as cost of the litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order on the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of The Consumer Protection Acts.
Dated this, the day of 16th January 2014
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1 - Retail invoice Bill No. 718 dated 10-10-2012
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
// Forwarded by Order //
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
