BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 183/2008 Filed on 13.08.2008

Dated : 30.09.2009

Complainant:

G. Chandran, Sivapadmam, Madhavapuram, Veli, Titanium P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-21.

(By adv. N.G. Mahesh)

Opposite party:

The Proprietor, Snow n' White Dry cleaners, Narayana Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Jayamohan. M)

This O.P having been heard on 23.09.2009, the Forum on 30.09.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant entrusted two saris for dry-cleaning to the opposite party on June 2008 and he received the same after dry wash on 14.07.2008 and he paid 100/- as the charge. But at the time of delivery the opposite party did not issue the bill to the complainant. On 20.07.2008 when his wife wore the sari she found that there were damages on the same. The very next day complainant approached the opposite party and demanded to rectify the defects. Then they misbehaved towards the complainant in front of other customers and threw away the sari. The act of the opposite party seriously affected the mental condition of the complainant. Complainant states that the price of the sari was Rs. 1,300/- and the same was bought three years ago. Due to the damage of the same his wife also sustained mental agony. The complainant filed this complaint for compensation for their mental agony and loss due to the deficient service of the opposite party.

Opposite party filed their version contending the entire allegations. Opposite party states that they are carrying on business for the last 20 years. All their customers are satisfied with their work. They have done their work very perfectly. Opposite party doubts that the complainant is not at all a customer of the opposite party and he has filed this false complaint only to cause inconvenience and hardship to the opposite party. Opposite party alleges that the damage might have happened at the house of the complainant due to some other reasons. But the complainant is trying to put the responsibility on the opposite party. The opposite party states that the complainant never approached the opposite party. Opposite party always tries its best to settle the genuine complaint of its customers and had never behaved to any of the customers including the complainant in any unfair manner. The opposite party further stated hat the complainant has not produced any bill showing that the silk sari alleged to have been damaged costs Rs. 1,300/-. Opposite party denied the contentions that the complainant and his wife suffered mental agony and the opposite party dragged him to the court. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the opposite party cross examined the complainant. Complainant produced the tag and cover of the sari issued by opposite party and the sari in dispute. The tag and cover are marked as Exts. P1 & P2. The sari was marked as M.O1.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

2. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case complainant has not produced the bill issued by the opposite party. On that ground opposite party denied the transaction. But the complainant produced the tag which is the marking number of the opposite party identifying the customer and has been marked as Ext. P1. As per Ext. P1 the No. is seen as H 1653. The complainant produced the paper cover of opposite party, the Snow 'n' White as Ext. P2. And also at the time of trial the counsel for the opposite party submitted that they are ready to darn the damage part on the sari. From these evidences we conclude that the complainant had entrusted the same to the opposite party and the opposite party dry cleaned the sari and thereby caused damage.

One of the contentions of the opposite party is that the complainant has not produced the bill showing the price of the sari. The complainant states that the price of the sari is Rs. 1,300/-. We have carefully examined the sari and found that there is damage on the sari and price of the sari is about Rs. 700/- only. The complainant himself admitted that he had purchased the same 3 years ago. From the above mentioned discussion and available evidence we are of the view that there is negligence and deficient service on the side of opposite party. Hence opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 400/- as price of the sari, after deducting depreciation from Rs. 700/-. Opposite party shall also pay Rs. 500/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount till the date of realization. After compliance of the order opposite party shall take the sari from this Forum.

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 30^th day of September 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 183/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - G. Chandran

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Original token given by the opposite party to the

complainant.

P2 - Paper cover of opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT