O R D E R<br /> <br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> Petitioner's case is as follows:<br /> <br /> Petitioner entrusted 2 coats, 2 pants and one sweater to the opposite party for dry cleaning . The opposite party accepted the items and issued bill for Rs. 190/- showing the delivery date as 24..3..2005. On 24..3..2005 when the petitioner approached the opposite party for collection of dry clearned items. The petitioner at the time of delivery when the petitioner checked the items it was seen that inform that one coat and one pant wasunfit for wearing condition. So he did not delivered the damaged items and asked the opposite party to clear the damage. The petitioner as a part payment for the delivered goods paid an amount of Rs. 102/-. According to the petitioner the damaged items will worth Rs. 6000/-. The petitioner personally approached the opposite party 3 times for settling the matter but the response was not satisfactory so the petitioner issued a lawyers notice to the opposite party. The opposite party accepted the same and not<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> replied nor settled the matter. The petitioner states that the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and damage was cause due to the negligence in service rendered by the opposite party so, the petitioner prays for directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 5000/- for the damage caused to the coat and pants and he also claims compensation in the tune of Rs. 7000/- and cost of proceedings.<br /> Opposite party has not entered appearance or filed any version even after notice issued from this Forum, So, opposite party set ex-parte.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs if any?<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner's definite case is that when the petitioner approached the opposite party for collection of dry cleaned items he found that one coat and one pant were seen in an unfit condition for wearing . So he did not take delivery of the damaged item. The petitioner had produced a receipt dated 19..3..2005 issued by the opposite party the said document is marked as Ext. A1. In Ext. A1 it is noted that one coat and one pant were not returned. The petitioner produced a lawyers notice issued by her to the opposite party the office copy of the said notice produced is marked as Ext. A2. The opposite party has not heed to the demands not replied to Ext. A2. The case of the petitioner is proved by the affidavit and the documents. Since, the opposite party has not entered appearance or,<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> filed version or adduced any evidence the petitioner's evidence stands unchallanged. We are of the opinion that the act of the opposite party in causing damages to articles due to the act of unfair service and negligence is a clear deficiency of sevice. So the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. II<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result the following order is passed.<br /> The opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.5000/-, cost of the article, the opposite party is also ordered to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and sufferings no compensation is ordered. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 5th day of June, 2008