Date of Filing: 23/08/2011

        Date of Order: 13/09/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated: 13^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 1555 OF 2011

Smt. Girija,

W/o. Sri Shivakumar,

R/at: Plot No.75, Veerabhadra

Industries, Antharasanahalli

Industrial Area, Sira Gate & Post,

Tumkur.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.M.S.Narayan)                                          Complainant.

-V/s-

M/s. Lalco Silks and Sarees,

No.87, Chowdeshwari Temple Street,

Bangalore-560 002.                                                            Opposite party.

BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.6,500/-, are necessary:-

On 25.03.2011 the complainant purchased 3 Fancy Sarees worth s.4,900/- from the opposite party.  Out of which one saree worth Rs.1,500/- was 38 inches in length but it was informed it was 44 inches in length which was not visible nor apparent.  The complainant informed it to the opposite party and requested either to replace the saree or to refund the sum of Rs.1,500/-.  Actually the saree was processed by machine press to increase the length for 44 inches.  Hence a notice was issued to the opposite party on 06.06.2011 as it has not been complied with, this complaint is filed.

2.        The counsel for the complainant took time on 02.09.2011 to address the arguments.  On 07.09.2011 neither the complainant nor his counsel were present.  Hence it was posted to today.  Even today neither the complainant nor his counsel were present.  Hence perused the records.

3.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether there is prima facie material of any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice?
2. What order?

4.        Our findings on the above points are:-

            Point (A):In the Negative

Point (B):As per the final order

For the following:-

REASONS

POINT (A) to (B):-

5.        In this case the opposite party is M/s. Lalco Silks and Sarees, No.87, Chowdeshwari Temple Street, Bangalore-560 002.  Whether it is proprietory concern? Whether it is a limited company or a partnership firm? Who is representing the opposite party is not stated.  Hence it is not possible to issue process to the opposite party.  So many opportunities were given to the complainant to amend the complaint suitably, that was not utilized.

6.        The entire grievance of the complainant is that, one saree should have been 44 inches in length, but actually it is 38 inches length. Hence it is a deficiency in service.  The complainant has produced the invoice No.2409 dated: 25.03.2011 with respect to the purchase made by him from the opposite party.  Here it does not say that the saree is of a particular dimension it simply says 3 fancy sarees one saree of Rs.1,500/-, another saree of Rs.3,000/- and another saree of Rs.400/- that’s all.  It does not say the length of the saree or width of the saree or any other description of the saree then how can we say that the saree purchased by the complainant should be of a particular size and it is not of that size.

7.        The complainant has stated the saree should have been 44 inches in length.  If length of the saree is 44 inches it cannot be used as a saree.  This itself clearly goes to show that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.  Apart from this there is no other material that is to say the opposite party has mislead the complainant.

8.        Even otherwise the complainant has clearly stated that the saree was machine pressed and it was 44 inches in length.  That means apparently there was no deficiency in service.  Even otherwise any material if it is machinly pressed the length cannot be increased by 9 inches.  This itself clearly goes to show that the complaint is misconceived.  Hence under these circumstances there is no justification to proceed further.  Hence we hold the Above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Dismissed.  No order as to costs.

2.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

3.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 13^th  Day of September 2011)

     MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT