DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

 Dated this the 29^th day of November 2024

Filed on: 01/02/2024

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                                               Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                                          Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                     Hon’ble Member

CC No. 114 OF 2024

Complainant

Leelamma Abraham, Aikkarakudiyil House, South Maradi, Parathatta, Muvattupuzha, Pin- 686673

(Complainant Rep. By. Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha, Pin- 686661)

VS

Opposite PartY

M/s Jos Brothers, Jos Jn, MG Road, Ernakulam-682 016.

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant, a resident of Muvattupuzha, entrusted a valuable Kanchipuram silk saree, two years old, to the collection centre operated by the opposite party on 14 August 2023 for dry cleaning. The opposite party accepted the saree after ensuring it was free from defects. The complainant collected the saree, along with the bill, from the opposite party after the dry-cleaning process was completed.

Later, when the complainant wore the saree to a wedding function, she discovered it was torn in multiple places. Upon identifying these issues, the complainant immediately informed the opposite party's collection center, seeking a resolution. However, no steps were taken by the opposite party to address her concerns.

The complainant attributes the damage to the saree to the careless handling by the opposite party during the dry-cleaning process. This negligence and failure to provide adequate service constitute a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As a result, the complainant seeks compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the inconvenience, financial loss, and emotional distress caused.

2. NOTICE:

The Commission issued notice to the opposite party, but they failed to file their version within the statutory period and was consequently set ex-parte.

3. Evidence:

The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with M.O.  (Saree) which is marked as M.O.1.

4. Points for Consideration:

The main points to be analyzed in this case are:

i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to relief?

iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?

We have also noticed that a Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version. Hence the opposite party was  set as ex-parte. The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with M.O.  (Saree) which is marked as M.O.1.

However, the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission or set aside the ex-prate order passed against it. It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary and unjustified act of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

The opposite partys’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them.  Here, the case of the complainants stands unchallenged by the opposite party.  We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its Order dated 09/10/2017 in RP No. 579/2017 (2017(4) C.P.R 590)  also held a similar stance. 

We have meticulously considered the detailed submissions made by the complainant.

Analysis and Legal Reasoning:

Point (i): Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

The complaint is filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the complainant has established that she is a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act. The opposite party is a service provider engaging in dry-cleaning services, making them liable under the definition of "service" in Section 2(42). As the dispute pertains to a deficiency in service, this complaint falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

The complainant submitted the saree for dry cleaning, which was subsequently damaged. The saree qualifies as a "valuable item" under this context, and the complainant paid for the service, making her eligible to seek redress under the Act. Hence, the complaint is maintainable.

Point (ii): Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice?

Deficiency in Service:
As defined in Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, deficiency in service includes any failure by a service provider to meet the standards expected under the agreement. In this case:

1. The complainant entrusted her saree to the opposite party in good condition, and the opposite party accepted it after confirming there were no defects.
2. After the dry-cleaning process, the saree was returned torn in multiple places, demonstrating negligence in handling during the service.

The opposite party's refusal to address the complainant's concerns constitutes gross negligence and failure to fulfill its obligation of providing adequate care and attention to the saree.

Unfair Trade Practice:

The opposite party failed to provide a resolution or acknowledge the complainant's grievances, violating Section 2(47) regarding unfair trade practices. This deliberate non-cooperation further aggravates their liability.

Point (iii): Whether the complainant is entitled to relief?

The sari presented by the complainant was found to have tear in it when the commission examined it in detail. The complainant has substantiated her case with a proof affidavit and material object (M.O.1, the saree). The opposite party, despite notice from the Commission, did not file a written version, nor did they appear to contest the claim. Their failure to respond amounts to an admission of the allegations.

The complainant has established that she suffered financial loss, mental agony, and emotional distress due to the negligence of the opposite party. Hence, she is entitled to relief.

Deficiency in Service and Negligence:

The opposite party’s act of carelessly handling the saree during the dry-cleaning process, leading to irreparable damage, constitutes negligence.

Legal Analysis and Observations of the Commission:

1. The opposite party was issued notice but failed to file their version or contest the proceedings. This silence is interpreted as an admission of guilt under National Commission’s ruling in 2017 (4) CPR 590 (NC).
2. The complainant provided adequate evidence, including the damaged saree marked as M.O.1, to substantiate her claim.
3. The opposite party’s negligence and refusal to address the complainant's grievances are arbitrary and unjustified, and amount to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Liability of the Opposite Party:

The opposite party is solely liable for the damage caused to the complainant’s saree due to negligent handling during the dry-cleaning process. Their failure to rectify the situation or provide a resolution demonstrates wilful disregard for the consumer’s rights and contractual obligations.

Relief Granted:

After considering all evidence and legal principles, this Commission finds in favour of the complainant. The opposite party is directed to:

1. Pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant for financial loss, inconvenience, and emotional distress caused.
2. Pay ₹3,000 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) towards the costs of proceedings incurred by the complainant in pursuing this complaint.
3. The opposite party is liable for the fulfilment of the above orders, which must be executed within 45 days from the date of receiving this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under point I will result in interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (01.02.2024) until the date of full payment realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th   day of November 2024

Sd/-

D.B. Binu,  President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N.,  Member

                         Forwarded/By Order

                          Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

MO1: Saree

Opposite Parties’ Evidence

NIL

Date of Despatch

By Hand       ::

By post         ::

AKR/

 Order in CC No. 114 of 2024

Date: 29/11/2024