Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 22nd day of September, 2004
C.D.No.84/2004
R.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy,
S/o R.Shankar Reddy,
Sai Ram Book Center,
Maddur Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainants represented by his counsel
Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan
-Vs-
Proprietor,
M/s Rayalaseema Electrical Dry Cleaners,
Maddur Nagar,
Opp.Manger Bar and Restaurant,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel
Sri.G.C.Yeramala
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite part to pay him Rs.2,800/- towards the cost of the damaged Saree and blouse, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and costs alleging the negligent attitude of the opposite party, the complainant sustained damage to the saree and the blouse given for the Dry Clean.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 05-12-2003 the complainant gave a saree and the blouse of his wife to the opposite party for Dry Clean and the later charged Rs.25/- vide bill No.2/162016. The said articles were returned to the complainant on 12-12-2003 and on opening the said packet the complainant noticed damage to the said saree and blouse in the form of dis coloration which occasioned due to negligent mixing of them with the other colour clothes at the time of washing by the opposite party. As the said saree and blouse damaged due to colour patches the complainant approached the opposite party and the opposite party abused the complainant in the filthy language instead of setting right the matters. The opposite party gave evasive and the false replies to the legal notice dated 13-03-2004 of t eh complainant seeking the redressal of his grievances. The said saree was purchased by the complainant’s wife for Rs.2,800/- in the month of the October, 2003 from Kamakshi Silk House, Hyderabad and the due to negligent attitude of the opposite party in washing the said saree and the blouse getting colour patches on them caused the loss of the worth of the said articles to the complainant and the said conduct of the opposite party is amounting to deficiency of service.
3. Inpursurance of the receipt of the notice from the forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party neither made any appearance through person or through counsel nor contested the matter by filing any denial written version to the complainant averments and ultimately remained exparte.
4. In substantiation of the complaint averments the complainant’s side relied upon the documentary material record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and the sworn affidavit of himself and his wife in reiteration of the complaint averments.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of the service of the opposite party towards him and thereby his entitleness to the claim.
6. The EX.A3 is the purchase bill of the saree y the complainant’s wife. In envisages the purchase of a saree by Sulochana of Kurnool on 23-10-2003 for Rs.2,800/- from Kamakshi Silk House, Abids, Hyderabad. The said cash purchased bill mentions the particulars of the article purchased there under was a worked Pattu Saree. The said facts being not rebutted otherwise it establishes conclusively the alleged purchase of the said saree by the complainant’s wife for the amounts shown therein. The Ex.A1 is the legal notice caused by the complainant’s side on the opposite party claiming the cost of the said article on account of its damage at the negligent conduct of the opposite party in washing. The receipt of the said notice was acknowledged by the opposite party not only under a postal acknowledgement enclosed to the Ex.A1, but also in the Ex.A2 reply notice caused on the complainant at the instructions of the opposite party. The said Ex.a2 even though denies of any of its deficiency of service in washing the clothes and denying any damage to the said saree and blouse and there by denying of any of its liability to the complainant, there appears a diagonally opposite note of the opposite party on the said Ex.A2 requesting to take delivery of the saree and the jacket mentioned in the said notice. The said inconsistence stand of the opposite party in Ex.A2 reply notice causes any amount of doubt on his denial of deficiency of service. While such is so the Ex.A5 the alleged saree and blouse which was damaged in the said dry cleaning finds ugly colour patches hither and thither. The complainant alleges them as a result of the opposite parties negligent conduct while washing in mixing up with the other coloured clothes and the said patches as a result of the dis-coloratin of other colour clothes. The said fact alleged both in the complaint averments, Ex.A1 notice averments and the sworn affidavit of the complainant were neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite party. The Ex.A4 is said to be the packing cover of the opposite party in which the questioned saree and the blouse were delivered back to the complainant after Dry Clean. The said fact was also not rebutted by the opposite party. Hence, the case of the complainant is not only remaining conclusively established beyond the reasonable doubt, but also making out the negligent attitude of the opposite party in washing the said clothes and the deficiency of the service of the opposite party in the damage occurred to the said Ex.A5 saree. The opposite party instead of setting right the matters as driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal of his grievances, the opposite party is remaining liable not only for mental agony the complainant suffered at the conduct of the opposite party, but also to the costs.
8. Therefore, in the result of the above discussion, the opposite party has found of his deficiency of service in dry washing the saree and blouse given by the complainant for a service charge of Rs.25/-, the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.2,800/- towards the costs of the said saree and the blouse with interest from at 12% per annum from 12-12-2003 realization and to take back the damaged saree and blouse in Ex.A5 and Rs.500/- towards mental agony and Rs.500/- towards costs within a month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation, corrected by us, and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 22nd day of September, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :- Nil For the opposite parties :- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Legal notice dated 13-03-2004 issued by complainant counsel to opposite party.
Ex.A2 Reply notice dated 19-03-2004 given by opposite party’s counsel to Ex.A1.
Ex.A3 Cash bill dated 23-10-2003 issued by Kamakshi Silk House for Rs.2,800/- to Sulochana the complainants as to.
Ex.A4 Packing cover of opposite party.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- NIL
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
