BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 84/2008 Filed on 22.04.2008

Dated : 15.11.2008

Complainants:

1. Consumer Vigilence Centre, Sreekovil, Kodunganoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013.

    

2. B. Sasidharan, Thilak, Kudappanakunnu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

1. The Proprietor, Alapatt Silks, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Manager, Alapatt Silks, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. C.S. Sukumaran Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 10.10.2008, the Forum on 15.11.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Facts of the case are as follows: The 1^st complainant in this case is Consumer Vigilence Centre and 2^nd complainant is Sasidharan. On 16.01.2008 the 2^nd complainant purchased some dress materials from opposite parties' shops in connection with his son's marriage. As per bill No. 25346 the 7^th item is

a sari worth Rs. 5250/-. At the first use itself the black border colour of the sari spread over other parts of the sari and the sari got totally damaged and became useless. The 1^st complainant and his family

members approached the opposite party and informed the matter and requested for the replacement of

the same. But the attitude of the opposite party towards the complainant was very bad and the opposite party insulted the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached the 1^st complainant Consumer

Vigilence Centre for their help. Accordingly the 1^st complainant approached the opposite party for an

amicable settlement but they were not ready to settle the matter. Another allegation against the opposite

party is that the opposite parties printed the condition in their bill that “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged.” The 1^st complainant stated that it is the violation of G.O. No. 60/07 FCS&CA dated

03.11.2007. As per the G.O the cash memos/bills etc. issued by all kinds of traders/shop keepers do not carry the condition that “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged.” The 1^st complainant

sent a notice to the opposite parties on 05.02.2008 informing to settle the matter and also informing about the G.O dated 03.11.2007. But the opposite parties never cared the notice and still continues their practice. Thereafter the complainants approached this Forum for the redressal of their grievances.

The opposite parties are ex-parte.

The 2^nd complainant was examined as PW1 and he produced 2 documents and the disputed sari was

produced as MO1.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant has produced the sari as MO1. We have carefully examined the sari. We can see that the black colour of the sari has spread to other parts of the sari and it became totally damaged and it is difficult to use the sari for any other function. The Ext. P1 bill shows that the price of the sari is Rs. 5250/-. The sari is very costly one. It should definitely have the quality according to the price otherwise it is an exploitation of the consumers by the traders. In this case at the first use itself the colour of the sari spread even at the time of sweating. In this case the opposite parties have sold a low quality sari at a higher price. It is unfair trade practice. And moreover the opposite parties have violated the Government Order that the bills do not carry the condition that “Goods once sold will not be taken back/exchanged.” From the pleadings and evidences adduced by the complainants, they have succeeded to prove their case. The acts of the opposite parties are amounting to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result the 1^st opposite is directed to pay Rs. 5,250/-(Rupees five thousand two hundred and fifty only) to the 2^nd complainant, the price of the sari, and also to pay Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand

only) as compensation and Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as costs. This Forum direct the opposite parties to issue bills in future without the condition that “Goods once sold will not be taken back/exchanged.” Time for compliance one month thereafter 9% interest will be paid to the above amounts.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15^th November 2008.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 84/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - B. Sasidharan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of cash bill dated 16.01.2008 for Rs. 6252/- issued by

the opposite party.

P2 - Copy of notice dated 05.02.2008 issued by the General

Secretary, Consumer Vigilence Centre to the opposite parties.

III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb