BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 108/2012 Filed on 07.04.2012
Dated : 30.06.2012
Complainant :
Iqbal, S/o S.M. Basheer, residing at T.C 43/712(2), Kamaleswaram, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 009.
(By adv. Emmanuel Chathenchira)
Opposite party :
M/s Delma Eye Clinic and Opticals, T.C 40/1508(3), Thara Building, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-9 represented by its proprietrix K. Sarada.
This O.P having been heard on 13.06.2012, the Forum on 30.06.2012 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Brief facts of the case are as follows: Due to vision problem complainant approached for consultation before Aradhana Eye Hospital, East Fort on 26.12.2011 and the ophthalmist advised him to wear power glass at the earliest. Accordingly complainant approached the opposite party's eye clinic and opticals on 19.01.2012 to purchase a lens and frames for his own choice. Complainant demanded a metal frame and the opposite party's staff showed a frame and explained the specifications of the frame, that particular frame was fully made on metal and there is a plastic coating outside of the frame to get a good look. Complainant selected the said metal frame and demanded to fix power glass which is suggested by the ophthalmist as per prescription. Accordingly, the staff of the opposite party fixed the power glass into the selected frame and collected Rs. 1,800/- towards the cost of lens and frames. Opposite party issued bill for the same to the complainant. While on 21.01.2012 the complainant was wearing the spectacle on his face the same was cracked and broken into two parts. Immediately the said damage was reported before the opposite party on the same day itself and produced the lens and frames for inspection and checking. At the time of inspection, it is found that either the frame was made by using re-cycled plastic or the same was made in fiber. The opposite party's staff verified the lens and frames and returned the same by stating that “he can't do nothing in this matter because the same was damaged due to negligent use”. Thereafter complainant had issued a legal notice to the opposite party demanding to refund the cost of the spectacles. Opposite party received the notice and sent a reply denying all the contentions in the notice. Opposite party issued another legal notice to the complainant demanding to pay compensation for deformation and deformatory statements. Complainant sent reply to that notice. But the opposite party has not taken any steps so far. Complainant alleges that at the time of sale of frame the opposite party mislead the complainant and by showing metal frame and he subsequently supplied plastic frame instead of metal frame, and the opposite party charged cost for metal frame from the complainant. Hence the act of the opposite party is illegal, ill motivated and not bonafide. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, fraud and forgery. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party accepted notice of this complaint, but not turned up to contest the case. Hence opposite party remained ex-parte.
Points to be ascertained are:-
Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?
If so, reliefs and costs.
Points (i) & (ii):- In this case opposite party remained exparte. Complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 11 documents to prove his case. The disputed spectacle is produced as Ext. P3. We find that it is broken into two parts and its frame is not made of metal. The case of the complainant is that at the time of sale of frame the opposite party mislead him by showing metal frame and subsequently supplied plastic frame instead of metal frame and the opposite party charged the cost for metal frame from the complainant. To prove his contention complainant has produced 11 documents and he has filed proof affidavit in lieu of evidence. Even though opposite party accepted notice of this complaint from this Forum, they never appeared to contest the case. Hence the affidavit and documents filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. From the evidences adduced by the complainant, we find that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1,800/- as the cost of spectacles to the complainant along with Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which entire amount shall carry 12% annual interest from the date of order. After the compliance of order, opposite party has the right to receive the spectacle from the Forum.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of June 2012.
Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 108/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of OP ticket dated 26.12.2011
P2 - Copy of sale bill dated 19.01.2012 issued by opposite party
for Rs. 1,800/-.
P3 - Spectacles.
P4 - Copy of advocate notice dated 21.01.2012
P5 - Original postal receipt.
P6 - Original Acknowledgement card
P7 - Reply notice issued by opposite party dated 02.02.2012
P8 - Advocate notice issued by complainant dated 02.02.2012
P9 - Reply notice issued by complainant dated 13.02.2012
P10 - Original postal receipt
P11 - Original acknowledgement card
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
