By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The marriage of the complainant was fixed to 06/06/2020. The complainant along with his family members visited the opposite party shop and purchased some dress worth Rs.25, 800/-for the marriage day. While the complainant and family members opened the box contained dress at the residence for verification, it was found the gown bought for the bride worth Rs.5, 195/- seen stained with henna. Immediately the complainant called the opposite party shop but the response of the opposite part was negative. The complainant approached opposite party directly on 27/05/2020 and told the grievance but they were not prepared to take back the dress and stated that once it is sold, it is not the practice of the opposite party to take back the same. The opposite party threatened the complainant in front of other customers. Due to bad experience from opposite party, complainant approached nearby shop called “Chamayam Textiles” and purchased dress to use on the day of marriage to the bride.
2. The allegation of the complaint is that the opposite party sold the dress to the complainant once sold to somebody and thereafter received back by the opposite party. The complainant alleges act of the opposite party as willful one. Due to the bad experience complainant caused financial loss as well as mental agony. He is aggrieved by the defamatory wordings of the opposite party in front of other customers.
3. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to refund the cost of dress Rs.5, 195/- and also pay compensation of rupees altogether 2, 00,000/-.
4. On admission of the complaint issued notice to the opposite party and on receipt of notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version.
5. The opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations contained in the complaint. The opposite party denied that the complainant approached opposite party shop on 26/05/2020 in connection with the marriage of the complainant fixed to be held on 06/06/2020, he purchased dress worth Rs.25,800/-, verified dress from the residence, the dress meant for bride worth Rs.5,195/- was stained with henna, complainant called the opposite party, there was negative approach from the side of opposite party, the complainant approached opposite party on 27/05/2020, the people from the opposite party shop told that the dress cannot be taken back, once sold dress will not be taken back, threatened the complainant in front of the other consumers are all false, hence denied.
6. The opposite party admitted that the complainant along with some ladies came to the opposite party shop on 25/05/2020 and bought 56 items worth Rs.25,800/-. On 26/05/2020 the complainant along with some ladies came to the opposite party shop and demanded exchange of a lehenga worth Rs.7,535/- and churidar bit worth Rs.2,125/- for a gown using by ladies. The manager of the shop examined the dresses brought back by the complainant and ensuring no defect caused to the dress received and thereafter a gown worth Rs.5, 195/- along with five other items in total worth Rs.8, 525/- given to the complainant. The difference of price rupees 1,221 was also given to the complainant.
7. On 27/05/2020 the complainant approached the opposite party shop and told that the gown taken on 26/05/2020 not impressed by the family members and again demanded to get back lehanga. But on verification of the gown by the manger it was found stained with mud and dragged over floor and also stained with henna. Then the opposite party refused to take back the dress. Then the complainant used some filthy words at manager and threatened and thereafter turned back with gown. The complainant hiding all the true facts from the commission.
8. The opposite party is not aware and need not aware about the purchase of dress from nearby chamayam textiles. The opposite party denied the allegation that the opposite party sold to the complainant a dress which was once sold and used by some other persons. The opposite party is one of the known establishments in the area of textile business and the aim of the complainant is to cause defamation to the opposite party. The opposite party admit that complainant issued lawyer notice claiming 1, 00,000/- rupees as compensation on 05/06/2020 and there was reply also to the notice. The opposite party contended that the claim of the complainant is totally baseless and also denied that the people of the opposite party insulted the complainant In front of the other customers. Actually, the complainant thoroughly verified the quality of the gown and the same is recorded in CCTV. The opposite party submit that the attempt of the complainant was to get a new dress hiding the fact. The opposite party could find the defects while the complainant brought the dress for exchange. So, the contention of the opposite party is that the entire claim of the complainant is baseless and no defamation or hardship has been caused to the complainant on account of the act of the opposite party. The complainant came to the opposite party shop, threatened the opposite party and insulted the opposite party in presence of other customers. The opposite party did not file a complaint before any authority considering the popularity of the opposite party. The complainant is bound to pay compensation to the opposite party for defaming and causing inconvenience and hardship to the opposite party.
9. The complainant filed affidavit and documents. The documents marked as Exhibits. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 25/05/2020. Ext. A2 is bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 26/05/2020. Ext.A3 is bill issued by Chamayam textiles dated 30/05/2020.
The opposite party filed affidavit. No document filed on behalf of opposite party.
The commission perused the affidavits and documents A1 to A3. Heard both sides.
The following points arise for consideration: -
- Whether the bridal dress was defective or not?
- Relief and cost?
Point No.1
10. The complainant submitted that he bought gown for the bride on 25/05/2020 from the opposite party shop. Ext. A1 is the document to show his purchase. On verification of the same it can be seen that there is no purchase of gown as per Ext. A1. But Ext. A2 shows that there was purchase of gown and return of certain items. So it can be seen that the complainant bought the disputed dress on 26/05/2020.
11. The original complaint was amended by the complainant after filing the version by the opposite party. The purpose of amending the complaint was to rectify the date of purchase of bridal dress. Hence after the amendment of the complaint it can be seen that the dress in dispute was purchased on 26/05/2020.
12. Now the case of the complainant is that when he verified the gown from the residence, it was found stained with henna on various parts. Complainant approached the opposite party with stained gown to replace the same but the opposite party refused to do the same. Not only that the complainant was insulted using defamatory words in front of other customers. Moreover, the opposite party said that it is not the policy of the opposite party to take back the articles once sold. Complainant was in need of a new dress for the day of marriage and so he purchased another set of dress from a nearby shop. Ext. A3 is evident for the same.
13. The opposite party denied the allegation that they refused to replace the dress once purchased by the complainant. According to the opposite party, on 25/05/2020 the complainant purchased the dress and on 26/05/2020 the complainant approached the opposite party for replacing certain items of dress and it was done also. But on 27/05/2020 the complainant again approached the opposite party stating that the family members are not pleased the dress purchased for bride and demanded again the dress already replaced Lehanga. But on verification of the dress bought by the complaint it was found stained with henna and soiled on the border side. Hence the opposite party was not in a position to replace the dress brought by the complainant.
14. Hence, it can be concluded that the dress in dispute was stained with henna and soiled in the border. The question is whether it was happened from the side of complainant or it was from the side of opposite party. The opposite party contended that the complainant and family members consuming sufficient time to select the dress from the opposite party shop. So, there was any defect to the material the complainant may not have selected the same. But the complainant submitted that while verifying dress from the residence in detail the alleged staining of henna and soiled border of the dress was noticed. The complainant immediately contacted the opposite party also. So, the time taken for preferring complaint and approaching opposite party is very reasonable. It is not expected to do by the complainant to cause staining of henna or soiling a bridal dress. The complainant bought the defective dress before the Commission and the Commission verified the allegation of the complainant .It is found that there is sign of staining henna and soiling on the dress. It is also to be noticed that the total dress purchased from the opposite party is worth only 25,800/-. The complainant purchased a dress as per Ext. A3 for the marriage purpose worth Rs.3197/-. The counsel for the complainant submitted during the argument that the marriage was fixed in a corona season and there was restriction for gathering. Hence there was no special invitation letter or huge gathering. So, we don’t find merit in the contention of the opposite party that there is no document to show the marriage was fixed on 06/06/20, the day as the complainant claimed.
15. In short, we find that the complainant hailing from a poor family, approached the opposite party to purchase marriage dress. But the opposite party delivered a dress to the complainant which was stained with henna and soiled on the border of the dress. The complainant approached to replace the same but it was disallowed without sufficient cause. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the product in dispute delivered to the complainant was defective one. Hence we allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party is directed to refund the cost of defective cloth worth Rs.5,195/- to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and thereby caused inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above entire amount will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2022.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1: Bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 25/05/2020.
Ext.A2: Bill issued by the opposite part to the complainant 26/05/2020
Ext A3: Bill issued by Chamayam textiles dated 30/05/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
VPH
