Date of filing :21-04-2009 Date of order :16-06-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.No.100/09 Dated this, the 16th day of June 2009 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Muth, S/o.Ismail, } Complainant C/o.Elite Hotel, Kanhangad. (In person) Proprietor, Madona Dress Cleaners, } Opposite party Opp. Kailas Theater, Kanhangad. (In peson) O R D E R SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER The case in brief are as follows:- That the complainant Muth had entrusted his mutilated trousers with opposite party for darning on 13-02-2009. While entrusting the pants, the opposite party told the complainant that the torned trousers will be returned back after 5 days. But the opposite party did not return the trousers after 5 days. The complainant had gone to the shop 4 times but the trousers were not returned to him. Then he sent a lawyer notice demanding the opposite party to return the trousers with a compensation of Rs.2000/-. Eventhough the opposite party received the notice she neither comply with the demands in the notice nor send any reply. Hence this complaint for necessary relief. 2. The opposite party received the notice and she appeared before the Forum in person and filed her version. 3. As per her version she admitted that the pants was entrusted with her by the complainant but she denied all other allegations made against her by the complainant. According to the opposite party while entrusting the pants with her she told the complainant to come after two weeks and the same is written in the receipt issued to the complainant. According to opposite party as per the receipt the complainant has to come on 27-2-2009. But he came on 25-02-2009 at noon time. At that time the opposite party asked the workman who is doing the darning about the completion of the work and the trousers was ready for delivery on that day after noon. The same was informed to the complainant but he was not ready to wait till afternoon and he filed this complaint. 4. The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1, the complainant and Exts A1 to A3. Opposite party is examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on her side. 5. Here the points raised for consideration are whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 6. According to the complainant he was asked to go to the shop to take back his darned cloth after 5 days. But in Ext.A1 receipt and in Ext. A2 the lawyer notice it is shown that the cloth will be ready for delivery after 2 weeks. The case of the opposite party is that the complainant was instructed to come after two weeks to take delivery of the trousers on 27-02-09. But the cloth was ready for delivery on 25-02-09. But the opposite party was not ready to take back the item within time. From the above evidence adduced by both parties and from the documents filed by the complainant himself it is revealed that there is no latches on the part of opposite party. There is no merit in the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. But the opposite party is directed to return the darned trousers belongs to complainant on payment of the darning charges if it is not paid. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Bill issued by OP. A2.9-3-09 copy of lawyer notice. A3.Photocopy of acknowlegment card. PW1. Muth DW1.Regi Mary Peter MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
