COMPLAINT FILED: 25.03.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 30.01.2010 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 30th JANUARY 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.706/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Dr. Chandra. S. Siddaiah,<br /> # 306, 5th Main, 8th Cross,<br /> Tatanagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 092.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri G. Anil Kumar<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Ms Sudha Rajendra Patil,<br /> Owner,<br /> Shri Parvathi Textiles,<br /> No.5, RS Plaza New BEL Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 094.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri M.S.Shyam Sundar<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of CP Act 1986, by the complainant, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.18,000/- with 18% interest on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in this complaint are as fallows: <br /> <br /> On 12.10.2008 complainant purchased one readymade Raymond Grey Suit from the OP Shop for a sum of Rs.18,000/-. Since the suit was a bit lengthier at the wrist, it was advised by the OP that it will be altered accordingly at the wrist. When complainant returned back to OP to collect the altered suit he found that sleeve at the shoulder was completely removed and re-stitched. The alteration made by OP changed the fittings of the suit completely. Again OP asked the complaint to come for discussion and forced the complainant to accept the altered suit. Complainant did not agree for that the complaint sought for refund of amount. OP neither realized the mistake nor refunded the money. OP did not respond for about 5 months. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he was advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs. The invoice, alteration slip and memo are produced. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OP filed version mainly contending that the suit was stitched as per the measurements give by the complainant. When complainant complained that sleeves to be longer at wrist portion the same was altered. But complainant was not happy and started finding unusual faults; OP offered the complainant to purchase any other item of the same value of Rs.18,000/-. Complainant being a stubborn demanding repayment without any genuine reasons. The OP graciously offered for exchange in order to satisfy the customer by overruling their company policy. As per the norms goods once said cannot be taken back or exchanged. OP honoured the grievances, obliged the instructions of the complainant but complainant rejected to take delivery of the goods or equivalent value. Complainant has not produced any legal evidence to establish deficiency in service. So complainant is not liable for refund of Rs.18,000/-. Complaint is vexatious and ill-conceived and OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP also filed affidavit evidence. Both the parties submitted their written arguments. Then heard the oral arguments.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of<br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. <br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one readymade Raymond Grey Suit from the OP on 12.10.2008 for a sum of Rs.18,000/-. The invoice dated 12.10.2008 is produced. Further it is also not at dispute that the said suit was a bit lengthier at the wrist and OP offered to alter the same accordingly at the wrist. After alteration complainant found that OP instead of altering at wrist length had opened and altered suit at shoulder and had re-stitched. The re-stitching was clearly visible and making the suit impossible to wear. Hence complainant refused to take delivery of the suit. The OP took further time to make the suit according to the complainant’s fitting. After few days when complainant met OP to collect the suit same was not altered. Since the suit was altered at shoulder it cannot be redone. Since the entire fitting was lost the complainant sought for refund of amount. OP refused to return the amount instead offered the complainant to purchase any other item of the same value. Complainant did not agree to take any exchange. OP did not respond for five months. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is contended by the OP that OP stitched suit as per the measurements given by the complainant. When complainant complained about the sleeves to the longer at wrist portion; same was altered to complainant was not happy, started finding unusual faults. Further it is contended that OP graciously offered exchange by overruling their company policy; as per the invoice condition “goods once sold cannot be taken back or exchanged”. The complainant refused to purchase any items in the same amount instead of demanding for refund. In our view in case the alteration was to the satisfaction of the complainant there was no reason for taking delivery of the suit purchased the complainant is a doctor by profession and as super specialisation in sport medicine; presently he has working as head of the sport medicine at Manipal Hospital. Before that he did his super specilisation in sport medicine at London and worked in there for more than 5 years. The complainant expected alteration of the suit fitting his body; as the same was not to his satisfaction hence he was justified in refusing to take delivery of the purchase suit for nearly 5 months the purchase readymade suit remand with OP; as a result the complainant purchased new set of suit; consequently he was justified in refusing to purchase any other item in the OP show room instead of demanding refund of the amount. The condition printed on the invoice stating ‘goods once sold cannot be taken back or exchanged’ is an unaltered act on the part of the OP; the same cannot be binding on the complainant. When the goods sold is defective or the service rendered was not satisfactory; such condition printed on the invoice cannot be used as a defence for the claim for refund of the amount. The act of the OP in refusing to refund the amount received towards the cost of the readymade suit from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of cost of the suit with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.18,000/- being the cost of the suit with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order failing which complainant is entitled to claim interest at 12% p.a. from 12.10.2008 to till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of January 2010) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm<br /> <br />