O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member. The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant entrusted a shirt worth Rs.500/- with the opposite party shop for darning on 03-11-2009. The opposite party collected Rs.40/- from the complainant and issued bill dated 03-11-2009. As per the said bill, the opposite party ought to have delivered the shirt on 14-11-2009 to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party on 14-11-2009 itself and requested to deliver the said shirt. But the opposite party failed to deliver the shirt on the promised date of delivery. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party on several occasions and demanded his shirt. But the opposite party was not ready to deliver the shirt or to pay its value of Rs.500/-. The complainant alleged that the non-delivery of the shirt even after a lapse of more than six months is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the price of the shirt Rs.500/- compensation Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost. Notice was served to the opposite party. But the opposite party was called absent hence set expartee. Points for consideration are: i) Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and exhibits A1 to A4. Point no.I Heard the complainant and perused the documents produced by him. The original receipt issued by the opposite party is produced and marked as ext.A1. As per ext.A1, it is seen that the shirt was given for darning on 03/11/09 on payment of Rs.40/-. As per ext.A1 the promised date of delivery was 14/11/09. The complainant deposed that the opposite party refused to deliver the shirt even after repeated demands. The complainant further deposed that due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, he was forced to send lawyer’s notice to the opposite party. The copy of the lawyer’s notice dtd 10-06-2010 is produced and marked as ext.A2. The postal receipt and A/d card for the issuance of the said notice are also produced and marked as Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 respectively. It is significant to note that the opposite party failed to send a reply to the said notice. From this forum also notice was served to the opposite party and they chose not to contest. So the deposition of the complainant remain unchallenged. In our view the act of opposite party in not returning the entrusted shirt back or unwillingness to pay its value of Rs.500/- to the complainant even after a lapse of 8 months is a clear case of deficiency in service. In our opinion the opposite party is liable to compensate the mental agony and monitory loss suffered by the complainant. Point no.1 is found accordingly. Point no.2 In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is ordered to pay the price of the shirt Rs.500/- along with a compensation of Rs.1500/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/- to the complainant. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Appendix Documents of the complainant: Ext.A1-Original receipt dtd 3/11/09 Ext.A2-Copy of advocate’s notice Ext.A3-Copy of postal receipt Ext.A4-A/d card Documents of the opposite party: Nil By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
