IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 25th day of February 2010 CC.201/2002 C.K.Balakrishnan, Kummarambhil House, Koyyiattil, P.O.Chittariparamba Through PAH C.V.Pradeep, ‘Sreenivas’, P.O.Vattipram, Koothuparamba. (Rep. by Adv.M.Govindan kutty) Complainant Proprietor, M/s.Sankunny’s Saree Mandap, Hospital Road, Thalassery. (Rep.by Adv.C.K.Rathnakaran) Opposite party O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to repay Rs.3325/- towards the price of sarees and Rs.10, 000/- as compensation with cost. The material averments of the complainant are as follows: the complainant had purchased sarees and cloth material from opposite party on 20.3.02 in connection with his marriage as per bill NO.19885. On the day of its first use itself the colours of two sarees i.e. one bridal worth Rs.2700/- and another one worth Rs.625/- were started to fade. The colour spread over the body of the bride and the sister of the complainant who worn the sarees. Due to chemical reaction both were started itching and the whole marriage function ended in trouble and humiliation. The complainant felt much insult in front of relatives and well wisshers. The complainant approached the opposite party along with Power of Attorney holder and informed the opposite party and they agreed to replace the sarees and at the time, the complainant approached the opposite party for replace, they tried to avoid the complainant. Due to the insult and humiliation suffered in front of his relatives and well wishers, the complainant suffered so much of mental agony and pain and estimates Rs.10000/- as compensation. So the complainant issued a legal notice to replace the defective sarees along with reasonable compensation. The opposite party issued a reply denying their liability instead of replacing the sarees. Hence this complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed their version. The opposite party admits that on 2-0.3.02 the complaint had purchased 15 sarees as per bill No.19885. But denied that the sarees worth Rs.2700/- and Rs.625/- are very poor in quality and on the wedding day itself the colour of the sarees started to fade and it caused itching to the bride and sister of the complainant etc. The opposite party further denied that he had agreed to replace the sareee. The opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased 15 numbers of sarees, but he is not aware whether it is for his marriage. According to opposite party the saree worth Rs.2700/- is of high quality and does not have any possibility for colour being fading off or having any other complaint or defects. The opposite party being reputed for their customer’s service has no possibility for selling defective sarees or dress materials. More over no guarantee regarding colour, stuff and duration can be given on wedding sarees provided they are maintained in a proper way. The complainant purchased the sarees only after satisfied with rate and quality. Moreover the complainant had never approached the opposite party and hence opposite party was not aware of the damage and hence it is fabricated and cooked up stories. Above all the complainant has not produced the two sarees in dispute before the Forum and hence without seeing the sarees, the opposite party cannot say whether the complaint is filed with respect to the sarees purchased from opposite party. They are ready to replace the materials as a good will gesture and good relationship provided that the complainant convince the opposite party that the alleged defective materials must be the same that purchased from opposite party. So there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A7. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The complainant’s case is that two sarees purchased from opposite party as per bill NO.19885 dt.20.3.02 worth Rs.2700/- and Rs.,625/- are defective on the first day of its use and to prove this contentions, he has produced ext.A1 power of attorney, Ext.A2.Purcahse bill, A3 Lawyer notice, A4 postal receipt,,. A5.Acknowledgement card, A6 replies notice and A7 lab report. The opposite parties admits the purchase of saree but denied that the defective sarees are those sarees worth Rs.2700/- and Rs.625/- as per the above purchase. In the pleadings the opposite party contended that without seeing the saree he cannot say whether the complaint is filed with respect to the sarees, since the saree is not produced before the Forum. But later on the sarees were produced before the Forum and send for lab report. But the opposite party has not disputed the identity of the sarees after the sarees were produced before the Forum. So from these it can be inferred that the saree is same which were purchased from opposite party as alleged by the complainant. More over from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the complainant has come before the Forum with clean hands. So we came to the conclusion that the sarees send for chemical report are the one and the same as alleged in the complaint. The Ext.A7 is the test report of the sarees from Central silk technological Institute. The opposite party admits that in the report, it is stated that sarees have defect. Opposite party deposed before the Forum that “ kmcn-IÄ ]cn-tim-[-\¡v Ab-¨-Xm-bpT ]cn-tim-[\ dnt¸mÀ«n defect Dv F¶v ]d-ª-Xm-bpT a\-Ên-em-¡n-bn-«p-v.. From the report and from the deposition of the opposite party it is clear that sarees are defective. So we are of the opinion that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and for which they are liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant contended that the sarees were used on the wedding day and hence he had suffered so much of mental agony. It is true that he had suffered mental hardship in such conditions as stated in the complaint for which we assess Rs.2000/- as compensation. So the opposite party has shown deficiency and he is liable to repay the cost of sarees ie.Rs.3325/- along with Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2, 000/- as cost and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to repay Rs.3325/-(Rupees Three thousand three hundred and twenty five only) the price of sarees along with Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as cost and Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Power of attorney A2.Bill issued by OP A3.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A4 & 5.Postal receipt and AD A6.Replynotice A7.Chemical testing report dt.5.12.06 Exhibits for the opposite party Witness examined for the complainant PW1.P.K.Priya. PW2.Balakrishnan Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.Lameer.V /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P, Member | HONORABLE GOPALAN.K, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE JESSY.M.D, Member | | 
