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
Thursday the 7th day of December, 2006
CC. No. 148/2006
A.Sreevani,
W/o. P.S. Sudarshan,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o. 9/25 B1, Krishna Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
Proprietor,
M/S. Shobha Sarees,
Shop No.5, Abdulla Khan estates,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri K. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and opposite party called absent set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble lady member)
1. This consumer case of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite party to refund the costs of the saree i.e Rs.1,345/- with 24% interest per annum, Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is that the complainant purchased a Rajkot saree from opposite party on 17.12.2005 for Rs.1,345/- As the said saree was of rolling type the complainant gave the saree for rolling. After rolling when she verified the saree, was surprised to see that there are many holes on the face of the saree (borralu borraluga padinavi). Immediately the complainant approached opposite party and showed the defective saree and demanded either to replace or return the cost of saree, but the opposite party adamantly talked and refused to exchange the saree nor refund the cost of the saree. Other cloth merchants also verified the saree and opinioned that the opposite party have sold an old and defective saree. Thereafter, got issued legal notice dt 11.10.2006 to opposite party and there was no reply to the said notice but the opposite party phoned to the complainant’s advocate and replied adamantly. Hence, the complainant approached the Forum seeking redressal.
3. In substantiation of her case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) cash bill bearing No. 1116 dt 17.12.2005 for Rs.1,345/- (2) lawyers notice dt 11.10.2006 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party along with courier receipt and (3) defective saree, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.3 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party failed to appear before the Forum and were set exparte.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite party:?
6. It is a simple case of the complainant that she purchase a Rajkot Saree for Rs.1,345/-, as the said saree requires rolling she gave the said saree for rolling. After rolling she verified the saree and was surprised to she that there are many holes on the said saree (borralu borraluga padinavi) this is because the opposite party sold an old and defective saree and immediately the complainant approached the opposite party and showed the said defective saree but the opposite party adamantly talked with the complainant and refused to return the costs of the saree or to exchange the said defect saree with new one. The complainant in support of her case relied on Ex A.1 to A.3. The Ex A.1 is the cash bill bearing No. 1116 issued by opposite party dt 17.12.2005 for Rs.1,345/- as to the purchase of Rajkot saree by the complainant, the Ex A.2 is the lawyers notice dt 11.10.2006 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party, same grievances such as old and defective saree sold by the opposite party and after first rolling the complainant was surprised after verifying the said saree that there are many holes on the saree and the opposite party not caring to give reply to the grievances of the complainant and there by alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite party claiming for return of costs of saree i.e Rs.1,345/- or exchange the defective saree with new one besides to Rs.200/- as costs of this notice, in default the complainant will be constrained to resort to the Forum for redressal. The Ex A.3 is the Rajkot saree purchase by the complainant from the opposite party for Rs.1,345/- on 17.12.2005, on the said exhibit there appears many damages i.e holes, prima facie on observing the said holes it is remaining clear that the said saree is old one and the said damages or holes occurred only due to old stock of the said saree, from the very material i.e Ex A.3 it is remaining clear that the said holes on the said saree is only due to old stock. Therefore, what follows is that the saree purchased by the complainant is an old stock saree and holes appeared after first rolling itself hence, there appears every bonafidies of the complainant in her hesitation of the said grievances and there arises deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party in that regard. Hence, there appears no defect in holding the said saree as old and defective one. The above said doscile conduct of opposite party in refusing either to replace the same with new one or to return the cost of the same is sufficient for the complainant to suffer immense mental agony, hence the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.500/- towards mental agony. As the opposite party driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal the complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs.500/-.
7. Hence, in the circumstances, discussed above as it is clear that there are defects in the saree of the complainant purchased from the opposite party, the complainant is certainly remaining entitled to the reliefs sought.
8. Therefore, in the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.1,345/- towards the cost of the defective saree which is sold to the complainant on 17.12.2005 after receipt of the said defective saree (Ex A.3) from the complainant along with costs of Rs.500/- and compensation of Rs.500/- towards mental agony, within a month of receipt of this order. Return
the Ex A.3 to the complainant for returning the same to opposite party for compliance of order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 7th day of December, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Cash bill, dt 17.12.2005 for Rs. 1,345/- issued by opposite party.
Ex A.2 Office copy of legal notice, dt 11.10.2006 along with courier receipt.
Ex A.3 Defective Saree.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri K. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Proprietor, M/S. Shobha Sarees, Shop No.5, Abdulla Khan Estates, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties :
