IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 28th day of February , 2017.
Filed on 26.12.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
2. Sri. Antony Xavier( Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No 367/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Y. Nazeer Proprietor
S/o B. Yousaf Kunju Panakkal Textiles
Amloose, Chettivelikkakam Near Iron Bridge (Thekkekkara)
Thondankulangara Alappuzha
Alappuzha- 688 006 (Adv. A. Supriya)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant case in precise is as follows:-
The complainant on 16th December 2015 purchased two night dress and an innerwear for his wife from the opposite party’s shop for an amount of Rs. 650/-. On demand the opposite party issued only a hand written bill to the said effect to the complainant. As there was no trial room in the shop, his wife could try the said dress only in their home. They found that the dress they had purchased from the opposite party was not suitable for his wife. The next day the complainant approached the opposite party with a view to replace the same with the right one. However the opposite party had no in his stock the exact size of the dress that duly suited the complainant’s wife with the result, the complainant sought from the opposite party refund of the cost of the dress on taking back the same. The opposite party instead of refunding the same, abused the complainant in the filthiest language, and even attempted to assault the complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint before the DYSP Alappuzha, and the opposite party was called up to the DYSP Office. The opposite part agreed to refund the price of the dress, yet only made the complainant infinitely wait for the same in the DYSP Office. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being served, the opposite party appeared and filed version. The specific contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had not purchased the material dress from the opposite party shop. According to the opposite party, the complainant purchased nothing from his shop save choosing some of them thereof. After picking up few dresses, the complainant insisted for discount of the cost of the dress which the opposite party was hesitant to give in. Upon this the infuriated complainant abuse the opposite party, caught hold of his shirt, and stormed out of the shop exclaiming that a lesson would be taught to the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant made a complaint to the DYSP, and the DYSP instructed the opposite party that the cost of the material article should be handed back to the complainant on his production of the original bills. The complainant had not produced the bill for he was not having the one with him as he purchased nothing from the opposite party. The complainant manipulated a bill in a piece of white paper, and approached this Forum with a view of harass the complainant, the opposite party vehemently contends. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant and other witness as PW1 and PW2, and the document Ext. A1 and the article MO1 are marked. The opposite party was examined as RW1
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties the questions that crop up before us for consideration before us are:-
(a) Whether the complainant purchased the dress from the opposite party?
(b) Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party?
© Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We carefully perused the materials placed on record by both the parties. The specific case of the complainant is that the complainant along with his wife purchased dress from the opposite party shop. The opposite party only issued a kind of bill handwritten by him to the complainant. The opposite party shop had not trail room for the customers to try the dress therein. In this context the complainant wife was having the only way out to try her dress in their residence only to the realize that the same was not fitting to her. The next day the complainant took the material dress to the opposite party shop, but the opposite party had no corresponding size of dress that matched his wife. The complainant sought refund pursuant to which the opposite party abused the complainant, even attempted to assault him. The complainant lodged a complainant to DYSP which failed to bring about any ultimate result. The opposite party denied the complainant case in its entirety. According to the opposite party the complainant visited the shop, and selected some dresses. At the billing time of the same, the complainant sought discount which the opposite party refused. The infuriated the complainant. The complainant abused the opposite party, caught hold of his shirt and threatened him of consequence. The complainant made a complaint to the DYSP before approaching this Forum. The bill produced by the complainant is a forged one. Coming across the diametrically opposite contentions of both the parties we with extreme caution perused the complainant, version, deposition and other materials placed on record before us by the parties. Admittedly the complainant had visited the opposite party shop. However according to the opposite party, the complainant on his refusal of providing discount harassed him, and did everything to avenge the opposite party for denying discount to the complainant. Concededly the complainant approached DYSP prior to the filing of the instant complaint. At the first blush itself, the story put forth by the opposite party seems to militate against one’s usual prudence. However the complainant is not having any original bill as to the material article to be produced before this Forum, and in this context we are to look into the matter with abundant care and caution. The complainant has produced Ext.A1 document purportedly showing that the dress was purchased from the opposite party. It is true that the said bill carries nothing to show that the shirt was purchased from the opposite party. At the same time, it is pertinent to note that at the threshold of the complaint itself, the complainant has averred that the opposite party even on insistence only issued Ext. A1 document. Also the opposite party had apparently failed to produce the particular bill book before this Forum. That apart the complainant has produced the report of the Intelligence Officer, Commercial Taxes, Alappuzha which categorically state that the opposite party stood penalized for non-issuance of bill to customers. Thus as already observed not only the opposite party’s story of vengeance sounds unnatural, but also the opposite party’s practice of refusal of bill has been brought to light. Thus viewing from different perspective, it appears that the case put forth by the complainant is more probable, and worthy of acceptance. It goes without saying that the opposite party’s service is deficient.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the complainant an amount of Rs. 650/-(Rupees Six Hundred Fifty only) the cost of the dress to the complainant on the said being handed back to the opposite party. The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency of service committed by them. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this court within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2017.
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Y. Nazeer
PW2 - Sumesh Kumar P.S
MO1 - Two Night Dress
Ext.A1 - Hand written bill Dtd.16-12-2015
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Harris R
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by: Br/-
Compd. By:
