CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 66/12
Tuesday the 19th day of June, 2012
Petitioner : Joy Joseph,
Padinjareveettil House,
Koothrappally PO,
Changanacherry.
(Adv. Sebastian James Palakunnel)
Vs.
Opposite party : Proprietor,
Lilly White Power Laundries,
College Road,
Changancherry.
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows:
The complainant is a senior citizen aged 73 years and also an ex-service personnel. He entrusted three double dhothies and three readymade branded shirts for getting it dry cleaned with the opposite party on 27-10-2011 and the opposite party had issued bill bearing no.7614. The opposite party had promised to deliver the clothes on 10-11-11 and had demanded Rs.180/- towards the cost of dry cleaning. On the date of delivery the opposite party had effected the delivery of three dhothies and only two shirts and collected Rs.150/- as charges. One shirt was retained by the opposite party and they informed that the said shirt was not ready and it would be delivered soon. The said shirt which was retained by the opposite parties was in fact a branded new shirt of Van Husain company of price Rs.2130/-. As informed by the opposite party, the complainant reached the opposite party shop on 14-11-11, but the shirt was not delivered and the opposite party informed that the s aid shirt was misplaced. The opposite party promised to return the said shirt as and when it was traced out. Believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant visited the shop several times. But the shirt was not delivered to him. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the price of the shirt Rs.2130/-, compensation Rs.5000/- and litigation cost.
Notice was served to the opposite party and was called absent and set exparty.
Points for considerations are:
i)Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of
opposite party?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the complainant and documents Ext.A1 to A4.
Point No.1
Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the documents. The complainant averred that he entrusted three double dhothies and three readymade branded shirts for dry cleaning with the opposite party on 27-10-2011. The complainant further averred that on the date of delivery the opposite party had effected the delivery of the three dhothies and only two shirts. It was next averred by the complainant that the opposite party had retained one shirt as it was not ready for delivery. It was again averred by the complainant that as per the opposite party’s promise, he visited the opposite party shop on 14-11-2011, 17-11-2011, 19-11-2011, 21-11-2011, 28-11-2011,
3-12-2011, 12-12-2011, 15-12-2011 and finally on 19-12-2011, but the shirt was not delivered to him. Evidencing the above mentioned visits, the complainant produced the original receipt and it is marked as Ext.A1. From Ext.A1, it is clear that one more shirt is to be given to the complainant. Ext.A1 also makes clear that the complainant visited the shop on 14-11-11, 17-11-11, 19-11-11 and was asked to come on 21-11-11 for taking delivery of the said shirt.
The complainant issued a lawyer’s notice to the opposite party and the office copy of the notice is produced and marked as Ext.A2. The original postal receipt and acknowledgement card are produced and marked as Ext.A3 and A4 respectively and the same prove that the aforesaid lawyer’s notice was served to the opposite party. The complainant alleged that the opposite party and his staff behaved very rudely and insulted him without even considering his age and social status. According to the complainant the act of the opposite party is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
As the opposite party chose not to contest, the allegations and averments of the complainant against the opposite party remain unchallenged. On scanning the entire evidence placed on record, we find the opposite party deficient in their service. In our view, what had happened would have definitely caused mental agony, tension, inconvenience and monetary loss to complainant? Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point no.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the complaint is ordered as follows.
The opposite party will give the purchase price of the shirt Rs.2,130/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/-
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Original bill
Ext.A2-Office copy of advocate’s notice
Ext.A3-Original postal receipt
Ext.A4-Original acknowledgement card
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent