FA No. 1546/2007    against CC No. 601/2007

   on the file of the  District Consumer Forum II, Hyderabad

Between:

J. Krishna Rao,

S/o J. Ramgopal Rao

C/o A. S. N. Reddy , Advocate

H.no.3-6-694,

Street No. 11, Himayathnagar,

Hyderabad                                                  .. Appellant/complainant

And

The Proprietor,

To-Day Electric Dry Cleanrs & Dyers

Opp : Kishanrao Hospital

Tilaknagar, Hyderabad                                  Respondent/opposite party.

Counsel for the Appellant               :       Party-in-person

Counsel for the   Respondent          :           Mr. V. Gourisankara Rao

CORAM    :  SMT. M. SHREESHA                                   … LADY MEMBER

                                                            AND

                        SRI G. BHUPATHI REDDY                       … MALE MEMBER

Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh Day of  August, Two Thousand Eight

Oral  order :  ( as per Sri G. Bhupathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member )

*           *           *

            This is an appeal  filed U/s.15 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986,  to modify the  order passed by the District Forum II, Hyderabad in CC No. 601/2007 dated 12the September,2007.

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has entrusted one pant and shirt on 24.8.2006 to the opposite party for dry cleaning purpose under acknowledgement receipt no. 4915. At the time of delivery on 28.08.2006,   the complainant noticed that there are 5 to 6 tear marks on the pant. Hence he  has refused to take the delivery of the paint and shirt  claiming Rs.1000/- towards replacement of the pant.  In his reply notice  dated 13.10.2006 to his legal notice on 25.9.2006 of the complainant,  the opposite party stated  that  the said tear marks found on the pant existing at the time of presenting them for washing and that the paint is old one and the same was brought to the notice of the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

          Despite service of the notice, the opposite party neither appeared before the Forum nor filed any counter. Hence the opposite party was called absent  and set exparte on 28.8.2007.

          The complainant  filed Ex. A1 to A3 in support of his  case and no documents   are filed on behalf of the opposite party. Based on the evidence adduced on record , the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs.600/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has  been filed by the complainant.

The point that arises for determination in this appeal is, whether the appellant has made over  the ground for modification of the order.

The grounds of appeal submitted by the appellant   are  : 

The appellant submits that the District Forum failed to give reasons for awarding the less compensation than the amount claimed by the petitioner. The District Forum  having given finding that the opposite party has no case, but, failed to grant satisfactory relief to the petitioner. The appellant prayed for modification of the order.

There is no dispute that the complainant has given one pant and shirt to the opposite party under receipt  on 24.08.2006 for dry cleaning purpose and to deliver them  on 28.8.2008.  At the time of delivery, the appellant  has noticed that there are 5 to 6 tear marks on the pant.  The appellant has refused to take  delivery of the paint and shirt  claiming Rs.1000/-.  After filing of the complaint before the District Forum, the respondent neither appeared nor filed any counter,  hence he was set exparte and exparte order was passed on the basis of the material available on record. The District Forum directed the opposite party  to pay  Rs.600/- to the complainant.  The appellant submits that the amount awarded by the District Forum is a meagre amount, that too, when there was no contest by the respondent.  The submission made by the appellant is concerned,  no doubt  that the appellant has claimed compensation of Rs.1000/- in the complaint and the opposite party did not contest the matter.  During the course of arguments, the respondent has delivered the shirt to the complainant and he noticed the short that there are no tear marks.  In the appellate stage, the complainant has claimed costs of Rs.600/- towards shirt, for which,  the appellant is not entitled.  The appellant being an advocate by profession has given a pant and shirt  for  dry cleaning to the respondent  and the respondent also did not dispute  with regard to the tear marks on the pant.  The respondent contended that he has already complied with the order passed by the District Forum and paid Rs.600/- to the appellant, the compensation awarded by the District Forum is adequate and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The submission made by the respondent is not sustainable as the respondent has not contested the case  before the District Forum, now, at the appellate stage  taken a plea that the complaint is not maintainable as per the terms and conditions printed on the reverse side of the receipt.  The submission made by the respondent is not sustainable since the respondent has not filed any counter nor documentary evidence  to show that as per the terms and conditions that the respondent is not liable to pay any amount in case of torn of pant.  On the other hand,  in the   terms and conditions printed on the reverse of the rec