PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 28th day of May 2012
Filed on : 05/01/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 6/2012
Between
Muhammadali, : Complainant
S/o. M.S. Aboobacker, (party-in-person)
Mullappilly house,
Nedumthodu, Mudickal P.O.,
Perumbavoor.
And
Punjabi Libas, : Opposite parties
Near Kavitha Theatre, (By Adv. Anju Jahafer, Chettutha-
M.G. Road, reparambil, Amarenth, Aroor P.O.,
Cochin- 682 035. Alappuzha.)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 03-07-2011 the complainant purchased a lacha from the opposite party at a price of Rs. 10,950/-. The lacha was intended for presenting to the bride of his son on the marriage ;of his son on 21-07-2011. On the next day of purchase the complainant noticed certain defects on the lacha and he presented the same for replacement to the opposite party on 05-07-2011. As another piece to the choice of the complainant was not available, the opposite party assured to replace the lacha on or before 21-07-2011. But they failed to replace the same as agreed. Since the purpose for which the lacha was purchased was over the complainant requested the opposite party to refund its price, but they refused to do so. Thereafter on 01-08-2011 the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding to refund the price. The opposite party received the notice and replied stating untenable contentions. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the lacha together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:
The opposite party admits the sale of the lacha to the complainant on 03-07-2011. At the request of the complainant the opposite party sewed the sleeves and delivered the same to the complainant. There was no defect at the time of handing over the same. On 05-07-2011 the complainant requested the opposite party to make modification in the lacha or else replace the same. As sleeves sewed as per the instructions of the complainant it was not possible for the opposite party to have resale of the item nor could it be returned to the supplier as it had already undergone alteration. However as a gesture of goodwill the opposite party offered to replace the same. But the complainant was adamant as his stand to refund of the price. The opposite party is not liable for the fault committed by the complainant and the complainant is neither entitled to get refund of the price nor to get any compensation from the opposite party. The complainant did not point out the nature of the defect in the complaint. This complaint is filed only to harass the opposite party.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1, Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the opposite party.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price
of the lacha?
ii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and
costs of the proceedings to the complainant. ?
5. Points Nos. i&ii. Admittedly the complainant purchased a lacha from the opposite party on 03-07-2011at a price of Rs. 10,950/-. The complainant contended that on 05-07-2011 the opposite party accepted the returned lacha and since another piece according to the complainant’s choice was not available, the opposite party agreed to deliver one of the complainant’s choice on or before 21-07-2011, but they failed to do so. It is stated that later the purpose to which the apparel was purchased was not served, the complainant requested the opposite party to refund the price, which was turned down by the opposite party.
6. The counsel for the opposite party vehemently contended the following
a. The counsel relied on the accepted legal maxim “caveat
emptor”
b. On 05-07-2011 the opposite party received the piece only for
modification and not due to its defect or replacement.
c. The opposite party expressed their difficulty in exchange or
refund of the items as it had already undergone alteration.
d. The complainant did not state the nature of defect in the
complaint and in the absence of specific pleading the
complaint is not maintainable.
e. It is clearly stated on the reverse side of the bill that goods
sold once will not be taken back, the said clause is
applicable to the complainant.
f. The complainant has altered the entries made by the
opposite party in Ext. A1 bill. The opposite party endorsed
the statement “price received” but the complainant altered the
wording to “exchanged item lacha received on 05-07-2011”.
7. The learned counsel relied on the following decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Higher Judiciary.
a. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. V. Ajay Kumar (2008) 4 SCC 504.
b. Ramachandran V. Dineshsan 2005 (1) KLT 333.
8. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party stated in their version that they were ready to make necessary alterations of the lacha or ready to replace the same with another one of the same price of the complainant’s choice. The complainant has neither stated the description of the lacha nor the nature of defects in the complaint. The plea of caveat emptor’ by the opposite party holds much water because there is nothing before us to show why this maxim of let the buyer beware can’t be upheld. Admittedly the opposite party made alteration to the said lacha at the request of the complainant as per his instructions. We feel nothing more a customer can demand nor trader has to bear. However the gesture of goodwill to replace the lacha to the satisfaction of the complainant is only to be appreciated and accepted provided the complainant chooses to choose another lacha or any other apparel of his choice for the same amount. The complaint has amply and adequately been met for reasons above no further order as to compensation and costs.
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and direct that the opposite party shall replace the lacha in question with a new one or any other apparel of his choice for the amount as per Ext. A1.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of May 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of invoice
A2 : Lawyer notice dt. 01-08-2011
A3 : copy of reply notice dt. 16-08-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Retail invoice dt. 03/07/2012
Depositions:
DW1 : Jolly
