BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 5th day of October, 2005
CD NO. 99/2005
K. Vidhullatha,
D/o. K. Sudhakar Reddy,
H.No. 87-1217,
Revenue Colony,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
M/s Kalanikethan Silks,
Rep by its Proprietor,
D.No. 18/47 G, (A.K. Market),
Nehru Road,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 28.9.2005 for arguments in the presence Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri.M.Syam Kumar Reddy, Advocate for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is field under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to refund the costs of the Saree i.e Rs. 2,300/- with 24% interest per annum, Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, cost of the complaint and such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitle in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased a Silk Saree from the opposite party on 7.5.2005 for Rs.2,300/-. After 4 days of purchase, the complainant had worn the said silk Saree and noticed damages to the said Saree i.e. torn at two places. On the same day the complainant along with her mother went to the Shop of the opposite party and showed the defective silk Saree torn at two places and demanded the opposite party either to replace or return the cost of the Saree. But the opposite party recklessly insulted the complainant to do what ever she wants. Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice dated 30.5.2005 to opposite party and the opposite party replied on 3.6.2005 denying the averments of legal notice. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite party constrained the complainant to seek redressal in this Forum for reliefs.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz, (1) Cash bill issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 7.5.2005 for Rs. 2,300/- (2) Lawyer’s notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party, dated 30.5.2005 (3) Postal receipt as to the sending of Ex A.2 (4) Postal acknowledgment as to the receipt of Ex A.2 by opposite party (5) Reply of opposite party’s Advocate to Ex A.2 dated 3.6.2005, and (6) Defect Saree besides to the sworn affidavit of the complaint in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.6 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant also relied on the third party affidavit of K. Nagarathnamma. The complainant and the third party suitably replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party appeared before this Forum and contested the case of the complainant by filing written version as defence.
5. The written version of opposite party denies the complaint of the complainant as neither maintainable in law or on facts and denies the averments made in the complaint, but admits the complainant purchased a silk Saree worth of Rs. 2,300/- on 7.5.2005 after satisfying with the said silk Saree. It further submits that the Silk Saree purchased by the complainant is a delicate Handloom Saree and no guarantee will be given to such Silk Sarees. The damage to the Saree of the complainant was because of its rough usage and it is for the complainant to verify the quality and durability of the Saree before purchase and now cannot blame the opposite party for selling the said Saree. It further alleges the defect in the Saree was not established as the said defect silk Saree was not sent to any appropriate laboratory or any other sources for proper analyses and seeks dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs. The opposite party in support of its case filed its sworn affidavit and did not file any documents and caused interrogatories to the complainant and third party and suitable replied to the interrogatories filed by the complainant.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the case of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party towards her, entitling her for the reliefs sought?:-
7. It is the simple case of the complainant that she purchased a silk Saree for Rs.2,300/- from opposite party and after four days of purchase when she wore the said Saree, she found two three inch long damages at two places, hence, alleges that the said Saree is of old one and defect one, on approach to the opposite party along with the said defective Saree, the opposite party rejected to return the amount or to exchange the said defective Saree with new one. But as against to it the opposite party alleges that the said Saree is new one and it is for the complainant to check thoroughly the quality and durability of the said silk Saree at the time of purchase and it is also for the complainant to send the defect silk Saree to appropriate laboratory for proper analysis to know the defect in the said silk Saree. In absence of any cogent substance in support of supra stated contentions, the said contentions of the opposite party on this aspects not only remains highly inconsistence, but also there by untrustworthy and as consisting of any bonafidies of the opposite party in that regard.
8. The complainant’s side in support of her case relied on documents marked as Ex A.1 to A.6. The Ex A.1 is the cash bill issued by opposite party to the complainant on 7.5.2005, it envisages as to the purchase of Silk Saree by complainant for Rs. 2,300/-, Ex A.2 is the lawyer’s notice dated 30.5.2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party, same grievances such as old and defect Saree sold by opposite party and not caring to give reply to the grievances of the complainant and thereby alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite party claiming return of cost of said Silk Saree i.e. Rs. 2,300/- with interest at 24% interest per annum, besides to Rs.500/- as compensation for mental agony, in default the complainant will be constrained to resort to the Forum for redressal. The Ex A.3 is the postal receipt as to the sending of Ex A.2, Ex A.4 while envisages the acknowledgment of Ex A.2 and Ex A.5 indicates the reply of opposite party to Ex A.2, denying all the material averments of Ex.A.2 as false.
9. The Ex A.6 is the Silk Saree purchased by the complainant from opposite party for Rs.2,300/- on 7.5.2005, on the said exhibit there appears two damages of three inch long, prima facie on observing the said two damages, it is remaining clear that the said silk Saree is old one and the said damages occurred only due to old stock of the said Saree, hence, from the very material (Ex A.6) it is remaining clear that the said damages to the said Saree is only due to old stock and on wearing it once for first time torn at two places. Therefore, what follows is that the Silk Saree purchased by the complainant is an old stock Saree torn at two places while wearing it for the first time, hence, there appears every bonafidies of the complainant in her hesitation on the said grievances and there arises deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party in that regard. The third party affidavit of K. Nagarathanamma also says that the said Saree purchased by the complainant torn at two places when the complainant wore the said Saree for the first time. Hence, there remains no difficulty in holding the said silk Saree as old and defect one.
10. The opposite party except alleging new stock Saree sold to the complainant but did not place any cogent relevant material to substantiate their bonafidies and malafides of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting corroborative material.
11. Hence in the circumstances discussed above as it is clear there is defect in the Silk Saree of the complainant purchased from opposite party, the complainant is remaining entitled to the reliefs sought.
12. Therefore, in the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.2,300/- towards the defect Silk Saree which is sold to the complainant on 7.5.2005, after receipt of the said defect Silk Saree (Ex A.6) from the complainant, along with Rs. 500/- towards compensation for the said deficiency in service and Rs.500/- towards costs within a month from the date of receipt of this order. Return the Ex A.6 to the complainant for returning the same to the opposite party for compliance of order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum, on this the 5th day of October, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Cash bill issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 7.5.2005
for Rs. 2,300/-.
Ex A.2 Lawyer’s notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party,
dated 30.5.2005.
Ex A.3 Postal receipt as to the sending of Ex A.2.
Ex A.4 Postal acknowledgment as to the receipt of Ex A.2 by opposite party.
Ex A.5 Reply of opposite party’s Advocate to Ex A.2 dated 3.6.2005.
Ex A.6 Defect Saree.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:-
-Nil-
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri M. Syam Kumar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
