S.N. Park Road,

Kannur-1                                                             :         Opposite Party

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalana, President.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay `3,089 being the price of the article and dry washing chargealong with `10,000 as compensation.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows. The complainant had entrusted a churidar purchased from G-sons, Kannur for `2,320.89 and a top worth  `550. When she went to opposite party’s shop for getting it back it was seen that the colour of the material was scattered almost all the remaining parts.  Similarly it was not seen dry washed.  It was shrinked and become useless.  The complainant entrusted the articles to the opposite party as it is not washable by hands.  If it is washed by hands, the dust and other dirt particles can not be removed properly.  So that complainant compelled to entrust the same for dry wash.  But opposite party had not done it correctly and promptly.  Though opposite party received dry wash charge he has not performed his job properly.  The negligence and unfairness on the part of opposite party made the article damaged and useless.   Complainant sent lawyer notice dated 28.05.2012 requesting him to pay the cost of the articles with compensation. But he did not sent any reply.  The articles were damaged due to the unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of opposite party.  Hence this complaint. 

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party made appearance through his counsel Adv. K. Vijayan and filed vakalath and time taken for version on 13.07.2012.  But he did not file version even if there were subsequent four postings.  Attempt for settlement also failed.  On 24.09.2012 version was filed with petition.  Petition allowed on cost.  It was then posted for chief affidavit and thereafter opposite party was specifically directed to produce the subject matter churidar article before Forum on 16.11.2012.  But opposite party did not produce the article. Though it was posted again on 30.10.2012. Opposite party did not produce the article. Complainant adduce no oral evidence but marked Ext.A1 to A4 documents on her side.  Since complainant’s evidence closed the matter was posted for opposite party’s evidence on 06.11.2012.  On 06.11.2012 opposite party neither produced the article nor adduced evidence.  Opposite party’s counsel prayed for an adjournment and this again posted for opposite party’s evidence on 16.11.2012.  On 16.11.2012 opposite party’s counsel reported no instruction.   The article has not been produced before the Forum by the opposite party even if there was specific direction.   In the light of reporting no instructions by the counsel of opposite party the evidence closed and the matter taken for orders. 

          Complainant produced Ext.A1 to A4 and get it marked in evidence Ext.A1 reveals complainant purchased the churidar material for `2,320 from G’sons, Kannur.  Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by G’sons for purchase of churidar.  Ext.A2 is the legal notice sent by complainant through a counsel Advocate N.Rajan.  Ext.A3 notice stated that he has entrusted opposite party a churidar purchased from ‘G’sons’ Kannur for an amount of `2,320.89 and a top worth of `550 in order to dry wash by paying `130.  It is alleged in the notice that when she went to the shop of opposite party for receiving dry washed article she could see that the colour of the material was scattered, almost all remaining parts.  It was also alleged that the article was not seen dry washed and it was seen shrinked and article became useless.   So she was not in a position to take back the article. It was further alleged that the article is still kept by the opposite party.

          Opposite party in his elaborate version contented that on 14.05.2011 complainant entrusted one churidar and another churidar top for dry wash.  Opposite party contended further as follows :  On examination  by the staff it was found that the colour of the embroidery work on churidar top was faded and spread over other parts of the top probably due to ordinary wash done earlier.  The same was brought to the notice of the complainant and noted on the receipt given to the complainant when she came back for taking back the article she refused to take the same falsely alleging that the colour scattering due to the fault of this opposite party and had made threat of unlawful consequence.  This opposite party had correctly and neatly executed the work entrusted with him and there is no negligence in work, deficiency in service or unlawful trade practice.  This opposite party had not received 130 shown in the bill.  It is payable only at the time of receiving the article.  Complainant is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed.

          Entrustment of churidar and one top with the opposite party by complainant on 14.05.2011 is an admitted fact.   The main allegation of the complainant is that the colour of the material was scattered all over the material and shrinked.  It has became useless and seen looked not dry washed.  Complainant further alleged that the article was entrusted for dry wash since the same was not washable by hands.  Opposite party did not specifically deny the allegations of the complainant fully.  Admitting entrustment of article opposite party contended that on examination by his staff it was found that the colour of the embroidery work on churidar top was faded and spread over other parts. But at the same time opposite party did not deny specifically the spreading of colour on churidar, leaving to presume that the churidar material is kept without any damage.  It has to be taken into account that the opposite party had been specifically directed by the Forum to produce the subject matter churidar before Forum on 04.10.2012.  It was again posted for production of the article before Forum.  But opposite party did not produce the same and thereafter the evidence of complainant taken by making Ext.A1 to A4 on the side of complainant. After closing the evidence of complainant it was posted for the evidence of opposite party.  No evidence adduced on the part of opposite party even though repeatedly posted for his evidence and finally the counsel for the opposite party reported no instruction and thereby evidence was closed.

          Non production of subject matter churidar before the Forum and the absence of opposite party without adducing evidence on his part in order to substantiate his contention itself prove that the allegations of complainant is true.  In the ordinary course of dealings non production of churidar before Forum leads to the presumption that it was not produced only on the reason that churidar was damaged as alleged by the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the legal notice sent by complainant through his counsel. The allegations set up in the notice were  not replied by the opposite party. Non reply of legal notice  itself is a deficiency in service. Further more opposite party neither adduced any evidence before the Forum nor produced the churidar material before the Forum even if there was specific direction by the Forum to produce the same before the Forum. Hence we are of opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party.  It is therefore we are of the view that the opposite party is liable to refund the price of the churidar materials and fee of the dry wash as shown in the receipt.  Ext.A4 issued by opposite party.  Moreover, opposite party is also liable to pay `1000 as compensation and `500 as cost.  Thus order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay `3820 (Rupees Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty only) including the price of the material, compensation and cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled for 12% interest thereafter the due date of payment.  Complainant is also entitled to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

                              Sd/-                     Sd/-              Sd/-                           

President             Member       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Retail bill issued from G’Sons dt.13.4.12.

A2. Copy of the Lawyer notice sent to OP

A3. Postal receipt.

A4. Receipt issued by OP

A5 series. Application for interrogatories.

A6. Attested copy of the passport of the complainant.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for either side:

Nil

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT