Proprietor, Pooja Drycleaners and automatic Laundry V/S Sreeja. V, - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/944

Sreeja. V, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Pooja Drycleaners and automatic Laundry - Opp.Party(s)

A.D.Benny

21 Apr 2008

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/944

Sreeja. V,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Proprietor, Pooja Drycleaners and automatic Laundry						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. Sreeja. V,

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Proprietor, Pooja Drycleaners and automatic Laundry

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. A.D.Benny

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President Petitioners case is as follows: The petitioner gave some of her clothes for dry work in the institution of respondent. When she came to bring her dry washed clothes back, the respondent returned her all the clothes except the Sari which she purchased from the Kalyan Silks Showroom at Round North, Thrissur for Rs.2,730/- . After compulsion the Sari is returned to her, but there had been occurred some worst changes to the Sari. The cream coloured Sari had changed into reddish cream. The dye of the border had spread on its nearer parts. The designs on it also had been damaged with colour mixing. There had been oil shades and saps on some part of it. Very small holes had also been occurred. There were whitish patches on it. It was totally in a useless condition. These are all happened only on the deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. Lawyer notice was sent stating all the facts. Reply was there, but baseless. No remedy is availed so far. Hence the complaint. 2. The notice from the Forum is accepted by the respondent on 22/11/07. So many adjournments were there due to no sitting of the forum. Lastly the case was posted to 7/3/08. When the case was called on that day the respondent was absent and declared exparte. 3. To prove the case of the petitioner, he has filed affidavit and 6 documents. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. 4. According to the petitioner she is entitled for the price of the Sari, i.e. Rs.2730/- and also compensation for Rs.5000/-. There is no counter evidence to the evidence of the petitioner. 5. In the result the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,730-/ (Rupees Two thousand seven hundred and thirty only) as price of the Sari and Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation. Comply the order within one month. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 21st day of April 2008.

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President Petitioners case is as follows: The petitioner gave some of her clothes for dry work in the institution of respondent. When she came to bring her dry washed clothes back, the respondent returned her all the clothes except the Sari which she purchased from the Kalyan Silks Showroom at Round North, Thrissur for Rs.2,730/- . After compulsion the Sari is returned to her, but there had been occurred some worst changes to the Sari. The cream coloured Sari had changed into reddish cream. The dye of the border had spread on its nearer parts. The designs on it also had been damaged with colour mixing. There had been oil shades and saps on some part of it. Very small holes had also been occurred. There were whitish patches on it. It was totally in a useless condition. These are all happened only on the deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. Lawyer notice was sent stating all the facts. Reply was there, but baseless. No remedy is availed so far. Hence the complaint. 2. The notice from the Forum is accepted by the respondent on 22/11/07. So many adjournments were there due to no sitting of the forum. Lastly the case was posted to 7/3/08. When the case was called on that day the respondent was absent and declared exparte. 3. To prove the case of the petitioner, he has filed affidavit and 6 documents. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. 4. According to the petitioner she is entitled for the price of the Sari, i.e. Rs.2730/- and also compensation for Rs.5000/-. There is no counter evidence to the evidence of the petitioner. 5. In the result the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,730-/ (Rupees Two thousand seven hundred and thirty only) as price of the Sari and Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation. Comply the order within one month. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 21st day of April 2008.

......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.