D.O.F:01/10/2022
D.O.O:15/02/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.246/2022
Dated this, the 15th day of February 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Ramsheeda M.
Arafath Manzil
Muriyanavi
(PO) Kanhangad
671315.
(Adv: Muhammed Shafi) : Complainant
And
Noorie Fashion
Opposite Old Kailas theatre
Puthiyavalappu
Kanhangad, 671315.
Kerala. : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant is that, the dress materials she purchased from opposite party was of low quality and color fading even though she had paid Rs.2,800/- for it. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant had purchased two readymade churidars for an amount of Rs.2,800/- from the shop of opposite party on 26/09/2022. The complainant used one of the churidar and when washed, its color started fading. Hence, she is afraid to use the other churidar and returned back and demanded refund of the price. But the opposite party refused the same. The opposite party insulted the complainant in front of other customers. Due to the illegal act of opposite party, the complainant suffered huge loss, mental agony and miseries. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and claims refund of the price of the materials with compensation and cost.
The opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of churidar by the complainant. According to the version filed by the opposite party, the complainant had purchased churidars and other dresses of which the maximum retail price was Rs.6,899/-. After discount, the goods were finally sold for Rs.2,800/-. The price tag clearly states that exchange will be entertained for 5 days and no guarantee for fabric, color and jary. The sale of this dress materials was executed on 26/09/2022. The same lady turned up on the next day and demanded exchange of the goods she purchased the previous day. The opposite party accepted the demand and she went back satisfied. The next day also, she visited the shop during lunch time and demanded for the exchange of the goods again. The same lady appeared again on 1st of October and asked for refund of the whole amount complaining that she does not require the goods. The opposite party replied humbly in a low voice that since the business was running at a loss only exchange could be done and no refund will be entertained. She suddenly got angry and threatened that she would file a case against them.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the document produced are marked as Ext.A1. The issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency of service/ unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
All questions can be considered together. The complainant purchased dress materials for an amount of Rs.2,800/- from the shop of opposite party on 26/09/2022. Ext.A1 is produced to prove the purchase of dress material by the complainant from the shop of opposite party on 26/09/2022. She used one of the churidar and when washed, its colour started fading. Hence, she returned the churidar and demanded for refund of the cash. The grievance of the complainant is that, after using one of the churidar when washed its color started fading. The complainant spent such a huge amount expecting a good quality product. She never expected a low-quality product for such a high price. The complainant approached opposite party to return the other churidar and demanded refund of the price. But the opposite party denied the demand and insulted her in front of other customers. Due to the illegal and irresponsible act of opposite party, the complainant had undergone acute mental agony, hardships, sufferings and financial loss. She waited in the shop for a long time expecting refund of the amount. The complainant is seeking compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and hardships she had undergone due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on his part. The complainant in her affidavit denied allegations leveled against her by the opposite party in his version, that she threatened the opposite party and visited the shop again and again for exchanging the dress etc. after purchase of churidar.
As per Ext.A1 document, the purchase of dress material by the complainant on 26/09/2022 is from opposite party’s shop is proved. The opposite party has not proved their case by cross examining the complainant or producing either documents or witness. By evaluating the affidavit of the complainant and version filed by the opposite party, this Commission holds that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party as they refused to refund the price of dress materials of the complainant. Moreover, opposite party insulted the complainant in front of other customers when she approached them for refund. This act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency of service. There is nothing to disbelieve the affidavit of the complainant in the absence of contra evidence from the side of opposite party. The complainant is entitled for refund of the price of the dress materials along with compensation and cost.
The prayer of the complainant is to refund the price of the churidar with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with litigation expenses of this case. But the compensation claimed is too high and without any basis.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing opposite party to refund Rs.2,800/- (Rupees Two thousand Eight hundred only) with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) along with Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from date of receipt copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Cash bill
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
