IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of April, 2010
Filed on 26.08.09
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.285/09
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.P.K.Ameer, The proprietor,
C/o Vahab, Mammalees House, S.N.Textiles,
Lajnathu ward, Whole sales and retails,
Opp.Vattappally, Near Santhy Theatre,
Alappuzha. Mullackal, Alappuzha.
(By Adv.K.S.Hariharaputhran)
O R D E R
SRI.K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri.P.K.Ameer has filed this complaint before the Forum on 26.08.2009 through his power holder, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The allegation are as follows: He had purchased a ‘churidar’ on 21.08.2009 for a price of Rs.508/- vide Bill No.3576 from the shop of the opposite party. When it use after an hour, the colour of the churidar changed and unable to use the same. Immediately he contacted the opposite party with the same and informed the matter. But the opposite party refused to accept the allegations and informed him that once soled item will not be taken back and that there is no guarantee for removal of colour. After intimating the above matter, the opposite party has taken back the item and informed him to contact after 5 days. Since there was no chance to get back a new item, he had collected the defective item from the opposite party. He had not obtained a positive steps from opposite party. Hence this complaint.
1. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance before the Forum and filed objection to the complaint. In the objection of the opposite party, it is stated that the complainant had not purchased the article from his shop. On 21.08.2009, a lady had purchased certain items for a sum of Rs.508/- from his shop, and paid a sum of Rs.500/-. After 3 days the complainant had contacted him and shouted that they are unable to use the set, since it was in a colour change. On 28.08.2009, the complainant had contacted him and take back the said item, which was in their possession for change through the main supplier. After purchase of the set, the complainant had used the item, and he has no right to demand a new item. The allegation against them are false and baseless and have no bonafides. Hence requested to dismiss the complaint since there was no deficiency in service on their side.
2. Considering the contentions the parties, this Forum raised the following issues for consideration:
(a) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
(b) Compensation and costs
Issues 1 and 2
3. Complainant has filed a proof affidavit in support of his case and produced the documents Ext.A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the Original Bill No.3576 dated, 21/08/2009 for a sum of Rs.508/- issued by the opposite party. The Bill shows that once sold item will not be taken back. Ext. A2 is the Power of Attorney Deed.
3. The Power of Attorney holder has been examined as PW1 and cross examined by the opposite party. Opposite party has been examined as RW1 and cross examined by the complainant. Opposite party has filed proof affidavit in support their contentions.
4. We have perused the entire matter of this case and verified the document produced by the complainant and examined the depositions of both parties. It is seen that the complainant had purchased the item from the opposite party’s shop for a sum of Rs.508/- and opposite party had issued the Bill for the said documents to the complainant. The complainant’s allegation is that they could not use the item due to its colour change after its first use, and they are unable to use the same. When contacted the opposite party, he has not accepted the allegation and not willing to change the defective item. The Bill shows that “once sold item will not be taken back”. This is illegal and arbitrary and that the opposite party has no right to state such stipulations in the Bill. The opposite party is fully entitled to accept the defective item for the complainant for issuing a new set. Any refusal to accept the item will amounts to deficiency in service and negligence. For this, the opposite party is entitled to give proper relief to the complainant. Entire action of the opposite party shows their unfair trade practice. Hence, we are of the view that the allegations of the complainant is to be treated as genuine. So, the complaint is to be allowed. There is deficiency in service and negligence on the side of the opposite party by way of refusal to give a new item to the complainant, since the sold item was defective. All issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result we hereby direct the opposite party to give a new ‘churidar’ to the complainant having the price of Rs.508/-(Rupees five hundred and eight only) after collecting the defective churidar from the complainant and pay a sum of Rs.250/-(Rupees two hundred and fifty only) to the complainant as compensation for his mental agony pain and inconvenience due to the willful refusal of the opposite party to change the item, their unfair trade practice and harass the complainant unnecessarily. We further direct the opposite party to comply with this order within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint is allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2010.
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Rajeev.K.P (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The Original Bill No.3576 dated, 21/08/2009
Ext. A2 - The Power of Attorney
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Proof affidavit in lieu of position
RW1 - S.N.Sugathan (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
