IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 28th day of February, 2011
Filed on 26.11.2010
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 318/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Alumpeedika Sukumaran The Proprietor
General Secretary Neethi Vasthralayam
Karunagappally Taluk Consumer East of Charummoodu Junction
Council, Alumpeedika P.O. Charummoodu P.O.
Pin – 690 547
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows: - The original complainant on 4th September 2011 purchased a 'churidar' for an amount of Rs.435/- (Rupees four hundred and thirty five only) from the opposite party. Within a few days, the said clothing seemed worn to shreds and tattered. The complainant called on the opposite party and impressed upon him the sad state of the garment lately bought from his shop. The opposite party instead of resolving the complainant's grievance insulted and harassed the complainant. Notwithstanding the complainant's earnest efforts, the opposite party was obstinate, and was hesitant either to replace the article or to refund its purchase price. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. Notice was served. The opposite party did not make it a point either to turn up or challenge the complainant case. Resultantly, the opposite party was set exparte. 3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant, and the document was marked as Ext. A1.
4. Keeping in view the complainant's contentions, the issues that arise for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the opposite party committed unfair trade practice?
b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We went through the materials put on record by the complainant. The complainant produced the Ext. Al bill which emphasis the purchase of the material clothing from the opposite party. In the said context, the immediate short question that arises originally for consideration is whether the opposite party is at fault of deficiency of service. Bearing in mind the complainant's contention, we carefully analyzed the materials the complainant brought out on record. The specific case of the complainant is that the clothing the complainant purchased from the opposite party has worn to shreds within days of its purchase. On the opposite party being approached, the complainant was insulted and humiliated. The complainant filed proof affidavit endorsing the assertive pleadings in the complaint. As we have already observed, the opposite parties did not make it a point to challenge the complainant's unambiguous case. We need hardly say, the case of the complainant stands uncontested. In our considered opinion, the opposite party has committed service deficiency, and the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund to the complainant the cost of the material garment viz. Rs.435/-(Rupees four hundred and thirty five only). The opposite party is further directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.l500/-(Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) as compensation and an amount of Rs.250/-(Rupees two hundred and fifty only) as cost. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Cash Bill for Rs.480/-
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
