BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 27/01/2011
Date of Order : 31/08/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 54/2011
Between
Sabu. M.M., | :: | Complainant |
S/o. M.K. Makkar, Madathilparambil House, Vennala. P.O., Kochi – 682 023. |
| (By Adv. Anil Kumar P.V., Guru Law Associates, Opp. EMC, Palarivattom, Ernakulam, Kochi - 25) |
And
1. Proprietor, Linen Club, | :: | Opposite parties |
The Ramp, Tharakan Building, Ravipuram, Cochin – 682 016. 2. Jayashree Textiles, Aditya Birla Nuvo, Rishra, P.O. Prabasnagar – 712249, Hoogly, West Bengal. |
| (Op.pts. 1 & 2 by by Adv. C.G. Sunil and Saji Mathew, S.G. Chancery Chambers, Advocates, 64/3147, Kalabhavan Road, Cochin - 18) |
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
1. This complaint stems out of the following facts :
The complainant, a business man who purchased a shirt from the 1st opposite party shop is urging us in the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 4,000/- for the act of having sold cloth of poor quality to him. The purchase was done on 29-05-2010. When it was found that the shirt was not of good quality, he returned it to the shop for replacement on 31-12-2010, but his request was turned down. This has prompted the complainant to lodge this complaint to ventilate his grievance.
2. The opposite parties filed version, where the allegations against the shirt under dispute is denied. The transaction of sale is not denied. The acceptance for replacement also is not denied. The replacement was refused because there was nothing to be complained of regarding the shirt. It is alleged that the complainant is often resorting to this practice against several shops to obtain replacement easily after using the garments for some time. Also, it is alleged that the complainant has misbehaved in the shop in front of reputed customers when his request for replacement was refused. The version ends with the request to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost to discourage such tendency.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 and A2 were marked for him. MO1 also was marked. The 1st opposite party's witness was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 to B7 and MO2 were marked. Argument notes were filed by both sides. The learned counsel were heard.
4. The points that arose for consideration are :-
Whether there is any merit in the complaint?
What are the reliefs, if any?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- A shirt purchased at a price of Rs. 920/- from the 1st opposite party showroom by the complainant which is made up of a very high quality fabrics is the bone of contention between the parties. Ext. A1 retail invoice dated 29-05-2010 stands for the transaction. The 1st opposite party also has no dispute regarding the sale. The parties fall apart only with regard to the subsequent developments of events. The complainant contends that he was really shocked when he came to realize that he had purchased the cloth of poor quality. His main grievance is that the shirt started tearing on several places and its ' texture started proving of low quality unusable material '. Unfortunately, the subject matter of dispute was not presented before us nor was it sent for the opinion of any expert in the field of textile technology. It is the duty of the complainant to establish that what he has contended is true in reality. The complainant has failed in that respect.
6. The 1st opposite party also raises their accusing finger against the complainant alleging that the complainant has made it a habit to make false allegations against the garments purchased by him to get replacement. Theirs is not an empty allegation. They have produced Exts. B2, B4, B5 and B6 documents which speaks for themselves to show that several times, the complainant had secured the benefit of replacement under one pretext or the other. The complainant has admitted those instances when he was deposing before the Forum. This conduct naturally leads to the suspicion regarding bonafides of the complaint.
7. The next contention raised by the 1st opposite party is that the garment under dispute was in the possession of the complainant for a very long time ie. nearly five months and it was returned for replacement admittedly only on 31-12-2010. This shows that the shirt was in the use of complainant for a reasonable time. Of course in the box, he has deposed that previously he had made attempts to return, but failed. This deposition can be taken only as a faint attempt to rebut the contention of the 1st opposite party. DW1 has admitted that the shirt was received by his staff in order to verify whether the complaint raised against the shirt was genuine or not. He also stated that they have a quality control department and replacement or refund is not made in this case according to the advice tendered by that department. It is pertinent to note that retention of possession of the so called defective shirt for such a long time is not in congruous with his revelation that the shirt became ineffective for use in three or four days after purchase.
8. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any substance in the complaint and hence the only course of action open to us is to dismiss it. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August 2011.