By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as given below.<br /> <br /> The Complainant purchased a garland from the Opposite Party to wear it as a ritual in marriage. The Opposite Party received Rs. 600/- as the price of the garland. At the time of booking the garland the Complainant has given Rs.100/- in advance. The balance amount Rs.500/- was given on 09.04.2006 and the garlands were given to the relative of the complainant in packing. The garland was when taken out to wear it in connection with the function of the marriage the Complainant could see that the flowers were containing worms and not suitable to <br /> <br /> (Contd.......2)<br /> 2 -<br /> wear. The bridegroom and the bride were highly pained on seeing the worms in the garland. The Complainant had no other way to keep away the garland. On wearing the garland at the time of<br /> marriage the worms crept into the body of the bride and bridegroom. It caused itching and irritation to both the Complainant and his wife. The sale of the garland by the Opposite Party to the complainant is an unfair trade practice. The Complainant is to be given the compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the selling of the garland infected of worms.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party filed version. The Opposite Party gave the Complainant two garlands along with two Bouquet. The person entrusted by the Complainant came to the shop of the Opposite Party on 09.04.2006. The garland and bouquet were received after verifying them. Where as there was the Complainant that the garland and bouquet were of low quality or consist of the worms are nothing but false. More over the Opposite Party was not informed of such an untoward incident till the filing of the complaint. As a flower seller the apposite Party had the experience of 27 years in the heart-land of Mananthavady. The Opposite Party has his own reputation in the field acquired for years. The complaint is not maintainable and is to be dismissed. <br /> <br /> The points in consideration are:<br /> 1.Is there any unfair trade practice in the sale of garland?.<br /> 2.Relief and cost.<br /> <br /> Points No.1 and 2: <br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. The Cash bill given by the Opposite Party dated 09.04.2006 is the Ext.A1. As per that the items ordered are two Bouquets and two garland. <br /> (Contd........3)<br /> <br /> - 3 -<br /> The outpatient ticket given from District Hospital, Mananthavady dated 12.04.2006 is the Ext.A2. The reason for the treatment shown there in is of to flower matter. Ext.A3 is the outpatient ticket given to Preneesh dated 12.4.2006. The reason for the treatment shown in Ext.A3 is also of flower. The witness examined on Complainant side is PW2. In the oral testimony of PW2 it is asserted that large number of worms in small size and comparatively large were seen in the garland. The worms were visible when the garlands were exchanged mutually in the function of marriage. An invitee in the ceremony who attended the marriage is examined as PW3 who was sent to purchase the garland and bouquets. The entire purchase were packeted and given to the PW3. The Opposite Party filed proof affidavit. But no oral testimony was tendered. The contention of the Opposite Party that the complaint has not raised any allegation directly to the Opposite Party cannot be considered against the probability. The marriage was evented on 09.04.2006. The treatment was availed by both the Complainant and his wife which was on 12.4.2006. The prescription itself shows that the treatment was in connection with flower wearing. From the above inferences it is to be held that the garland sold to the Complainant may be infected of worms and unusable. It is an unfair trade practise on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party sold the garland and bouquet at the price of Rs.600/-.The garland and bouquets are purchased in connection with rituals of the Complainant's marriage. The wearing of garlands resulted the treatment though the amount spent for treatment is not substantiated by the evidence. <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.600/- (Rupees Six hundred only), the price of two garlands and bouquets. The Complainant is<br /> also entitled for the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) along with cost of<br /> (Contd........4)<br /> 4 -<br /> Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only). The Opposite Party is directed to comply with this order within one months from the receipt of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st March 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Aneesh. K. Complainant.<br /> PW2. Shibi Housewife. <br /> PW3. Shinoj. V.P. Library Assistant <br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Cash bill dt:09.04.2006.<br /> A2. Outpatient Ticket given to Aneesh dt:12.04.2006.<br /> A3. Outpatient Ticket given to Preneesha. dt:12.04.2006.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.