IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Friday, the 30^th  day of  December, 2011

Filed on 25.10.2011

Present

1.  Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)

2.  Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)

3.  Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

CC/No.343/2011

 between

 Complainant:-                                                                        Opposite party:-

Sri. Dhanya. S.                                                             The Proprietor, Sheelas

Samthripthi, Ramapuram                                                           (Churidar Collecttions)

Keerikkad P.O., Alappuzha – 690 508                         Ezhikkakath Junction

                                                                                                Oppo. of Bhasi Studio

                                                                                                Haripad

O R D E R

SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)

            Smt. Dhanya has filed this complaint  before  the Forum on 25.10.2011 alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party.    Her contention is that she had entrusted  a “churidar piece” with the opposite party on 7.10.2011, for stitching with a request that the item will be returned on or before 25.10.2011.  As per the instruction of the opposite party she had contacted the opposite party on 22.10.2011 through phone for intimating the actual date for the delivery of the article.   But the opposite party has denied the actual date of delivery of the said item and behaved in a rude way.  Hence this complaint.

   When the case called on 30.12.2011, the complainant was present.  The opposite party filed vakalath and submitted that  at the time of entrusting ‘churidar piece’ with the opposite party, the opposite party had issued a receipt showing the date of delivery of the said item ie. on 24.10.2011 and further stated that the opposite party had not accepted any amount from the complainant as stitching charge.  The opposite party denied the charge of rude behavior.  The complainant has also admitted that she has not paid any amount to the opposite party, by way of stitching charge  and further submitted that she had entrusted only the churidar piece with the opposite party  for stitching.  Since there was no “consideration” for the said work, the complainant cannot be treated as a “consumer” under the C.P. Act, and that it cannot be say that there is  any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

 In this respect, we are of the view that the  complaint is not  maintainable  in the Forum and need not proceeded further.  Hence complaint disallowed. 

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th    day  of  December, 2011.

  Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan

  Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:

                                                                                                  Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:

 Appendix:- Nil

   // True Copy //

                                                                                                                        By Order

Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.

Typed by:-pr/-

Compared by:-