BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 159/2002 Dated : 30.10.2010 Complainant: Raveendran Nair, S/o Vasudevan Nair, Thinkale (Valiavila Puthen Veedu), Koliacode P.O, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Koliyacode V. Suresh) Opposite party :
The Proprietor, Sobha Textiles, Pothencode P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Jalaja Raveendran)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 17.11.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 31.08.2010, the Forum on 30.10.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER Complainant has purchased a sari from the opposite party's textiles worth Rs. 825/- on 01.12.2001, the same type of which was exhibited in the showroom. Opposite party packed the sari and entrusted the same to the complainant. But when the wife of the complainant opened the sari at his house it was found that the sari was torn and of poor quality. On the same day itself the complainant approached the opposite party to replace the sari. Then the opposite party promised him that the sari will be replaced within two days. But the opposite party has denied the promise. Therefore the complainant send a lawyer's notice on 12.12.2001. But till date the opposite party was not ready to settle the matter. Hence this complaint. Opposite party in this case filed version. Opposite party denied the purchase of the sari from their shop by the complainant. A lady had purchased the sari from the shop after duly examining, convincing and satisfying herself of the very good condition of the sari. But after 5 days of its purchase date the said lady approached the opposite party for the exchange of the sari. Accordingly the opposite party received the sari from her which on examination was found to be stained at a few places due to the use of the sari. Hence the opposite party returned the same immediately to the lady stating the inability to exchange the sari since it has been used and that is spoiled. Complainant in this case has filed affidavit and examined him as PW1. The opposite party cross examined the complainant. From the side of complainant 5 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. No evidences adduced from the side of opposite party. The points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant has produced 5 documents to prove his case. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the purchase bill dated 01.12.2001. As per this bill the price of the sari is Rs. 825/-. Ext. P2 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 12.12.2001. Through this notice the replacement of the sari has been demanded by the complainant and the complainant has claimed compensation for his mental agony caused due to the dealings of the opposite party. Ext. P3 is the postal receipt. Ext. P4 is the returned acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. Ext. P5 is the reply notice sent by the opposite party dated 26.12.2001. Through these documents the complainant has proved the transaction between the complainant and opposite party. Complainant had purchased the sari for an amount of Rs. 825/- on 01.12.2001. Ext. P1 is the evidence for that purchase. But later the complainant found that the sari was a damaged one. Hence the complainant approached the opposite party for the replacement of the sari. But the opposite party did not turn up to replace the sari. Therefore the complainant had sent a lawyer's notice. Opposite party accepted the notice and sent reply with false statements. Thereafter the complainant has filed this complaint. The sari has been produced before this Forum as MO1 on 18.07.2003. But now we cannot trace out the sari from this Forum. While examining PW1, he had deposed that “അതിന്റെ border കീറി ഇരിക്കുകയല്ലേ (Q) അല്ല, അത് അങ്ങനെ തന്നെയാണ് എനിക്ക് തന്നത്(A)”. It is seen that a sari purchased on 01.12.2001 has been taken to the opposite party's shop on 10.12.2001 which is admitted by the opposite party in their reply notice, Ext. P5. In Ext. P5 the opposite party has not whispered any thing regarding the damage caused due to the tearing of the sari. But later on only during cross examination the opposite party has taken out a contention that the sari was torn. The opposite party has never taken out a contention in the version regarding the said tearing of the sari instead they have contended that the sari was found to be stained. From the evidences adduced by the complainant we are of the opinion that the sari was a damaged one. Only after the purchase the complainant found that the sari was of a poor quality compared with the price of the sari. He was not satisfied with the sari. As a bonafide purchaser, he has the right to get a quality sari as compared with its price. It is the duty of the opposite party to allow the complainant to exchange another sari as per his choice at the same price. It is a settled position that the bills should not carry the condition that “Goods once sold will not be taken back/exchanged”. The act of the opposite party is against that order. The consumer has the right to exchange goods once purchased, within time. From the above mentioned discussions we are of the opinion that there has been deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund the price of the sari i.e; Rs. 825/- to the complainant with 9% annual interest from 01.12.2001 till the date of realization and shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount. Now there is no necessity to return the sari to the opposite party after a lapse of 9 years as the same has become a rag.
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 30th day of October 2010.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER jb
O.P. No. 159/2002 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Raveendran Nair II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Purchase bill dated 01.12.2001 P2 - Copy of advocate notice dated 12.12.2001 P3 - Postal receipt dated 12.12.2001 P4 - Acknowledgement card signed by opposite party P5 - Reply notice sent by opposite party dated 26.12.2001
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL V COURT EXHIBIT MO1 - Sari
PRESIDENT jb
| | [HONORABLE MRS. Smt. Beena Kumari. A] Member[HONORABLE MR. Sri G. Sivaprasad] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE MRS. Smt. S.K.Sreela] Member | | 
