Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President,
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 17th day of February, 2006.
CD No. 170/2005
A. Lakshmi Narasamma,
W/o. P. Venkateswarlu,
Aged about 42 years,
R/o. H.No. 27/82, Peta,
Chinna Market, Kurnool. . . . complainant
-Vs-
Proprietor,
New Triplex Electric Dry cleaners,
Shop No.4, Gafooria Complex,
Opp. Victory Talkies, Kurnool.. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 16.2.2006 for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Siva Sudarshna, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri B. Gopala Krishnudu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, 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 Member)
1. This Consumer complaint case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs.700/- as costs of Punjabi Dress, Rs.200/- towards compensation, costs of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitle in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant on 31.8.2005 gave a Punjabi Dress and a Saree to the opposite party for Dry-cleaning and the later charged Rs.55/- vide bill No. 317 dated 31.8.2005. The said articles were return to the complainant on 9.9.2005 and on opening the said packet the complainant noticed damages to the Punjabi Dress in the form of holes which caused due to over heating. On approach by the complainant the opposite party gave evasive reply. The complainant caused two notices dated 14.9.2005 and 28.9.2005 for which the opposite party did not respond. The cost of the Punjab Dress with stitching charges costs about Rs.700/-, due to the negligent attitude of the opposite party in dry-cleaning the said Punjabi Dress holes were caused and damaging the said Dress and the said dress not useful to wear. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint before the Forum for redressal.
3. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through his counsel and filed written version questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case either in law or on facts.
4. The written version of the opposite party states that the complainant did not gave her Punjabi Dress and Saree for Dry-cleaning on 31.8.2005. It also submits that if the complainant has given a Punjabi Dress and Saree for dry-cleaning on 31.8.2005 and same could have been taken by the complainant on 3.9.2005 itself and there is no need to wait till 9.9.2005 for taking delivery of said articles and when they were delivered on 3.9.2005, the complainant on 9.9.2005 approached the opposite party showing the damaged Panjabi Dress i.e after abovt one week of the delivery for which the opposite party cannot be made liable. Hence there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of opposite party.
5. In substantiation of complaint averments the complainant relied on the following documents (1) letter dated 14.9.2005 of complainant addressed to opposite party (2) reminder letter dated 28.9.2005 of complainant addressed to opposite party along with courier receipt and (3) damaged dress, besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of its complaint averments and caused interrogatories to the opposite party and suitably replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party. The opposite party relied on his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his written version and caused interrogatories to the complainant and did not file any documents.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service of the opposite party towards her and thereby her entitleness to the reliefs:-
7. It is a simple case of the complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for not properly Dry-cleaning her Punjabi Dress, when the said dress was given to opposite party for Dry-cleaning on 31.8.2005. On delivery of said Dress on 9.9.2005 it was found as having burnt holes due to improper ironing. The Ex A.1 and A.2 dt 14.9.2005 and 25.9.2005 are the notices caused by the complainant on the opposite party claiming the cost of dress on account of its damage at the negligence conduct of opposite party in dry cleaning. The receipt of said notices were denied by the opposite party but the Ex A.2 was acknowledged by the opposite party through courier receipt enclosed to the Ex A.2. Hence, what appears is that the opposite party having received the said notices but did not respond. The written version of opposite party in Para 6 denies of any receipt of Punjabi Dress and Saree for dry Cleaning and also denies of its deficiency of service in washing the said dress and denies any damages to the said dress and there by denying any of its liability to the complainant, there appears a diagonally opposite note of opposite party in his written version in para 7 stating that if the complainant gave her Punjabi Dress for dry-cleaning on 31.8.2005 and the same could have been delivered on 3.9.2005 and the complainant approached the opposite party on 9.9.2005 alleging damages to the said dress for the delay of one week in approaching the opposite party, the opposite party cannot be made liable. The said in consistence stand of opposite party in its written version cause any amount of doubt on his denial of deficiency of service. While such as so in the Ex A.3 the alleged Dress which was damaged in the said Dry-cleaning finds ugly 0holes hither and thither. The complainant alleges them as a result of opposite party’s negligence conduct while Dry-cleaning and improper ironing and the said facts was alleged in the complaint averments, Ex A.1 and A.2 notice averments and sworn affidavit of complainant were not rebutted by the opposite party.
8. Hence, the case of the complainant is not only remaining conclusively established beyond reasonable doubt but also making out the negligent attitude of the opposite party in Dry-cleaning the said Dress and deficiency of the opposite party to the damages occurred to the said Ex A.3 (Dress). The opposite party instead of setting right the matters has driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal of her grievances. The opposite party is remaining liable not only for mental agony the complainant suffered at the conduct of opposite party but also to costs.
- Therefore, in the result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.700/- towards the value of the Dress, after receipt of said Dress (Ex A.3) from the complainant along with Rs.200/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.100/- towards costs within a month from the date of receipt of this order. Return the said Ex A.3 to the complainant for return the same to the opposite party of compliance of order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the day of 17th February 2006.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex A.1Letter dated 14.9.2005 of complainant addressed to opposite party.
Ex A.2 reminder letter dated 28.9.2005 of complainant addressed to opposite
party along with courier receipt.
Ex A.3 Damaged dress.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:- Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:
- Sri P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
- Sri B. Gopala Krishnudu, Advocate, Kurnool..
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
