Telangana

Khammam

CC/09/98

Kanneti Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o. Laxminarayana, R/o. H.No.7-3-402, Vijay Nagar Colony, Bypass Road, Khammam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Gurram Brothers, Alayam of Textiles, Rep. by its Proprietor, Kaman Bazar, Khammam - Opp.Party(s)

Madapati Srinivasa Rao, Advocate, Khammam.

20 Apr 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM
Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/98

Kanneti Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o. Laxminarayana, R/o. H.No.7-3-402, Vijay Nagar Colony, Bypass Road, Khammam
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s. Gurram Brothers, Alayam of Textiles, Rep. by its Proprietor, Kaman Bazar, Khammam
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 20th day of April, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha B.Sc. B.L. - Member 3. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc. L.L.B - Member C.C. No.98/2009 Between: Kanneti Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o Laxminarayana, Age:37 years, Occu: Advocate, R/o H.No.7-3-402, Vijayanagar colony, Bypass road, Khammam …Complainant and M/s Gurram Brothers, Alayam of Textiles, rep. by its Proprietor, Kaman Bazar, Khammam …Opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri. M Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant and notices served for opposite party and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- O R D E R (Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member) 1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one pair of Pant & Shirt pieces from the opposite party on 09-01-2009 for an amount of Rs.580/-, out of the total amount, the opposite party had deducted Rs.103/- as discount and issued a cash bill bearing No.31886. After stitching, the complainant wear it for one time and while washing, the Shirt became shrinking and torn. Thus the complainant approached the opposite party, in the last week of January 2009 and shown the damaged Shirt and requested to replace the same, the opposite party wanted one- month time for sending the damaged Shirt to the manufacturer for replacement. Despite many approaches the opposite party did not respond to replace the same and finally the complainant approached the opposite party on 15-10-2009, but, it given reckless replies, as such the complainant seeks redressal and prayed to direct the opposite party to pay cost of the cloth together with stitching charges and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and costs. 2. Along with complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed cash bill dated 09-01-2009 for Rs.580/-, which is marked as Ex.A1. Along with the complaint, the complainant furnished the damaged shirt for observation. 3. Despite notice, the opposite party did not appear nor choose to file its counter. 4. In view of the above circumstances, now the point for consideration is whether the complainant entitled the relief as prayed for? 5. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased cloth material of Pant & Shirt pieces from the opposite party on 09-01-2009 for an amount of Rs.580/- and after got it stitched, the complainant wear the Shirt for one time and when it was washed, became shrinking and torn at first wash and as such approached the opposite party for replacement of the damaged Shirt in the last week of January 2009 i.e. within one month from the date of purchase, in spite of replacing the same, the opposite party asked for one month time for sending the Shirt to the manufacturer. However, the opposite party did not replace the damaged Shirt nor heard the requests of the complainant. As such he seeks relief from the opposite party. In the present case on hand the opposite party neither appeared before the Forum nor contested the matter even though it has sufficient chance for contesting and failed to resist the case till the matter is posted for orders and moreover, on our observation, the alleged Shirt, which was deposited along with presenting the complaint, was in torn condition, as such we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to fasten the liability on the opposite party and as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. 6. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to replace the damaged Shirt with new one or to pay costs of the Shirt piece and further directed to pay Rs.500/- towards stitching charges and costs of the litigation. Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 20th day of April, 2010. President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: -Nil- Witnesses examined for opposite parties: -Nil- Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A1. Cash bill dated 09-01-2009 for Rs.580/- President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam