SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP to return the amount of Rs.46,500/- the purchase price of bridal saree Rs.6000/- collected for pipping print on it and Rs.50,00,000/- being the compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and cost of proceedings along with 12% interest per annum from the date of claim till realization for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
The brief of the complaint :
The complainant is a doctor by profession, the bridegroom is a pilot in Indigo. Her marriage was scheduled to be solemnized on 21/8/2022. Believing on various advertisement seen everywhere, at that time the complainant had occasion to see the advertisement of the OP to the effect that she is selling quality bridal sarees. Marriage being the most precious occasion in a girl’s life, the complainant decided to purchase her bridal saree from the OP. Then the complainant visited the OP’s showroom cum sales outlet on 1/4/2022 to select her wedding saree and she purchased a wedding saree for an amount of Rs.46500/- from the OP. The OP made the complainant to believe that the saree which the complainant purchased is one of the item from their brand new bridal collection. “Manthra” also could be printed on the saree as pipping print, for the wedding and it is one of their specialties. This pipping print was also ordered by the complainant and she paid Rs.6000/- as the extra charge and she paid Rs.3000/- each in 2 instalments. The complainant paid the price of the saree and pipping print the online payment through her bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank. Marriage of the complainant was on 21/8/2022 at Rifta convention Hall,Chirakkal,Kannur. On the wedding day the complainant had worn the saree, after traditional make up, she was accompanied by relatives and friends to Kalyana mandapam for the tying of knot ceremonies. At that time some of them noticed that bottom border portion of saree was tearing. While moving towards the mandapam, tearing started to spread on all portion on the bottom border of the saree. Then somebody pinned the torn portion using safety pins all along. Even though it looked ugly, there was no other option for the complainant and others other than applying safety pins where ever the tearing was seen. The complainant was stood as a sorry figure in front of her relatives and friends and many of the persons attended the function was whispering that it is a bad omen. The marriage of the complainant was intended to be solemnized earlier and due to the covid out break and for the convenience of all to attend the function, it was delayed. Due to the incident all happiness of both families and friends were tarnished. The complainant states that the saree sold by the OP to the complainant is very old in stock and worthless one. Immediately after the conclusion of the marriage, the complainant informed the matter to the OP. But the OP not redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant send a lawyer notice to OP. But the OP not solved the problem of the complainant. The adamant attitude and poor service of OP the complainant and her family caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing this complaint notice issued to OP. After receiving notice OP appeared before the commission and filed her written version. She contended that the proprietory concern having good reputation and good will which runs a textile by name Seematti. The business of the textile industries for more than last 4 decades. Its main focus is to deliver quality cloths to the public of all sectors and ensure customers satisfaction throughout without any compromise. It is based on the self interest of the complainant to purchase the saree and not the employees prompted the complainant to purchase the saree. There is no material damage or defect at the time of purchase of the saree, therefore any tearing of the saree if at all happened due to the negligent or abnormal usage of the saree by the complainant and there is no liability to return the same or its value. The saree is to be used in a normal way and the same is put in use in an abnormal manner may result in tearing as the very nature of all clothes is exposed to tearing, if the same is not used in a normal way. The OP also replied the lawyer notice send by the complainant and the same was received by the complainant. The compensation sought in the lawyer notice sent by the complainant for mental agony and defamation was Rs.5 lakhs, where as in the present complaint the same was enhanced to 50 lakhs. So the contradictory version of the complainant is not believable and the complaint is not maintainable. So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. So the complaint may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4(series) and MO1 marked. On OP’s side DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5 marked . Complainant filed argument note also.
Issue No.1:
The Complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. She was cross examined as PW1 by OP. According to the complainant Exts.A1 to A4(series) and MO1 were marked. After verification MO1 wedding saree returned to the complainant also. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dtd.1/4/2022 for an amount of Rs.46,500/-. Ext.A2 is the receipt voucher dtd.29/6/2022. It contains saree pipping print Rs.6000/- and advance received Rs.3000/- and she paid total Rs.6000/- to OP. Ext.A3 is the marriage invitation letter, Ext.A4(series) is the photos 5in Nos. It shows that the complainant wear the saree at the time of marriage ceremony(marked the document with objection) MO1 is the wedding saree(with damage). After verification the MO1 saree returned to the complainant. At the time of evidence the complainant deposed that “ MO1 സാരി തന്നെ എടുക്കണം എന്ന് OP യിലെ ആരും നിർബന്ധിച്ചിട്ടില്ല? ശരിയല്ല നിർബന്ധിച്ചിരുന്നു. Managerഉം staff ഉം പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നു. അവർ പറഞ്ഞതിന്ർറെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ പൂർണ്ണ തൃപ്തി ഇല്ലാതെയാണോ സാരി വാങ്ങിയത്? പൂർണ്ണ തൃപ്തിയോടെയല്ല വാങ്ങിയത്. നിങ്ങൾ സാരി ഉടുത്ത് മണ്ഡപത്തിൽ കയറുമ്പോൾ കാലുകൊണ്ട്സാരിയുടെ അടിഭാഗം ചവിട്ടിയതുകൊണ്ടാണ് സാരി കീറിയതെന്ന് പറയുന്നു? ശരിയല്ല. മണ്ഡപത്തിൽ കയറുന്നതിന് മുമ്പേ സാരി കീറിയിരുന്നു. In the evidence of DW1 who deposed that” പരാതിക്കാരിയുടെ വിവാഹത്തിന് നിങ്ങൾ പങ്കെടുത്തിട്ടില്ല? ഇല്ല. ഈ case ൽ ഹാജരാക്കിയ രേഖകളിലൊന്നും നിങ്ങൾ ഭാഗമല്ല? അല്ല. നിങ്ങൾക്ക് ഈ case ഉം ആയി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട ഏതെങ്കിലും കാര്യമായി നേരിട്ട് അറിവുള്ളതായി version ൽ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല? ഇല്ല. OPയ്ക്ക് നേരിട്ട് കോടതിയിൽ വന്ന് തെളിവ് കൊടുക്കാൻ വല്ല ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടും ഉണ്ടോ? ഇല്ല. പരാതിക്കാരിയുടെ വിവാഹ ദിവസം വൈകുന്നേരം തന്നെ പരാതിക്കാരി phone ൽ വിളിച്ച് സംസാരിച്ചിരുന്നു?ശരിയാണ്. സാധാരണ കല്യാണസാരി സ്ര്തീകൾ മരണം വരെ സൂക്ഷിച്ചു വയ്ക്കും എന്ന കാര്യം അറിയുമോ? അറിയാം. Moreover he admitted that if the saree was old stock, it will tear easily. It was unnatural use that the saree was torn. If the complainant herself calls the OP, that too soon after the ceremonies of marriage and that fact is also admitted by DW1 also. As per the evidence of PW1 and DW1 it clearly shows that the saree was not torn due to the negligence of the complainant only if there is concern about the quality of saree, a purchaser will contact the seller to say that the product they sold is of very bad quality. The saree sold by the OP to the complainant was of inferior quality and old stock. The complainant and her husband are highly qualified and reputed family also. The marriage was solemnized from one of the well known convention hall “RFTA” at Kannur. On OP’s side DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5 marked. But the OP is not prove their defense. So the act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2&3:
As discussed above the OP is not ready to compensate the complainant’s grievance. The complainant produced Exts.A1 to A4 (series) and MO1 which clearly shows that the complainant had paid Rs.46,500/- to OP as the value of the wedding saree and Rs.6000/- paid as the pipping print charge also. On 21/8/2022 at Rifa Convention hall Kannur, the wedding day the complainant had worn the saree, after traditional make up, she was accompanied by relatives and friends to kalyanamandapam at that time some of them noticed that bottom border portion of saree was tearing while moving towards the mandapam tearing started to spread on all portion on the bottom border of the saree. Then somebody pinned the torn portion using safety pins all along. So the complainant caused much mental agony and strain. The OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore, we hold that the OP is directed to refund Rs.46,500/- as the value of the wedding saree and Rs.6000/- as the value of pipping print to the complainant along with Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.20,000/-as litigation cost to the complainant. Thus issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund Rs.46,500/- as the value of the wedding saree and Rs.6000/- as the value of pipping print to the complainant along with Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.20,000/-as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.52500/-(Rs.46,500+Rs.6000) carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. After the said proceedings the opposite party is at liberty to take back the damaged wedding saree from the complainant.
Exts:
A1- Tax invoice dt. 1/4/22
A2- receipt voucher dtd.29/6/22
A3-Marriage invitation letter
A4(series) Photos (5 in Nos.) marked with obhection- subject to proof-
MO1- Damaged wedding saree.
B1- Authorisation letter
B2- lawyer notice
B3-reply notice
B4- postal receipt
B5-acknowledment card
PW1-Dr.Kavya Mithin Raj- complainant
DW1-Cherian- Manager of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
