O R D E R. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner, filed on 3..6..2009 is as follows: Petitioner on 21..4..2009 purchased a sari from the first opposite party, manufactured by the second opposite party. According to the petitioner she purchased the same for wearing in the First holy communion ceremony of her child. After the first use within 13 days of the purchase colour of the sari was faded. Further more the sequence attached to the sari are also faded. According to the petitioner the act of the opposite party in giving an inferior quality sari is a clear deficiency in service. So, she prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. -2- 1st Opposite party entered appearance and filed version according to the 1st opposite party they are only the retail seller of the sari and the manufacturer of the sari in a necessary party. In this case they admitted the purchase of the sari according to the first opposite party manufacturer of the sari has not given any colour guarantee. The statement that petitioner has not washed the sari is denied by the opposite party. According to the1st opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Petitioner filed in IA 118/10 for impleading the manufacturer in the party array and the same is allowed. Notice is issued to the second opposite party they has not entered appearance or filed any version. So, 2nd opposite party is set ex-parte. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 bill produced by the petitioner. Material object is produced before the Forum and the same is returned to the petitioner. Point No. 1 First opposite party admitted colour fading in the sari . According to them it is common in the first wash and the petitioner is aware of the same. From the material object placed before the forum we find that the colour of the sari -3- including colour of the sequence is seen faded. The main contention of the first opposite party is that since the petitioner alleges manufacturing defect. The manufacturing company is a necessary party to the proceedings. Petitioner examined before the forum PW1. PW1 deposed that only by making the manufacturer in the party array the exact cause for the colour fading will come in to evidence. Further more PW1 deposed that in previous occasions she return defective saris to the first opposite party and they replaced the same by giving it to the manufacturing company. In our view act of the opposite party in giving an inferior quality sari to the petitioner amount to deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is allowed. Second opposite party is ordered to refund petitioner an amount of Rs. 2,249/- with 12% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Since interest is allowed. No compensation is ordered. 2nd opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 750/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied with within one month of the copy of the receipt of the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of September, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 21..4..2009 issued by first opposite party. Documents for the opposite party Nil By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
