CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of August 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SHINY. P.R, MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 24/06/2013
CC /107 /2013
Razi.N.K,
S/o.Muhammad Master,
Njaluchira Kalathil Veedu, : Complainant
Cherukode P.O,Vallappuzha via,
Palakkad 679 336.
(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)
Vs
Sakeer Hussain,
Gulf Gate Hair Fixing,
Mannil Arcade, Near KSRTC Bus Stand, : Opposite party
Palakkad.
(By Adv.V.Reetha)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The case of the complainant is that the complainant had done hair fixing on 26/12/2011 from the opposite party’s Palakkad Branch Office by spending Rs.10,500/- for one year guarantee and after two weeks the colour was lost and it started falling. On 12/01/2012 he went to the opposite party’s office and the opposite party coloured the hair as black and assured that the same will never happen in future. After 1 month the hair again lost colour, faded and started falling down and he again went to the shop on 27/2/2012 and got the hair dyed the same process was repeated very often. On 11/06/2012 when the complainant went to the Palakkad office and told them that if things gone in that level, it cannot be tolerated and that at the time of purchase, he had been convinced that materials can be used while riding bike and even taking bath and that nothing seems to be possible because of the poor quality materials used by the opposite party. The opposite party directed the complainant to contact their head office at Kozhikode. Hence he called head office on 19/06/2012 and they replied that they would call back after two days. They called back and asked him to contact Palakkad office immediately. Accordingly he again contacted Palakkad office but got the same replies as earlier and finally during January 2013 the opposite party replied that the time is already over and that nothing can be done further. Hence he issued a registered letter to the opposite party on 12/03/2013 for which no reply was received. Hence the complainant had approached before the Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to compensate for the irresponsible actions of the opposite party, suffered by him including mental agony due to financial loss.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegations in the complaint. They contented that GULFGATE products are extremely different from other product in quality, standard and service. The patch is the best available in the market and its quality is guaranteed. Materials with which it is made is original and so natural that it tunes the tagline of gulfgate. The gulfgate product is unique because it is durable, attractive, comfortable, natural affordable and so on. The intentions of the complainant in filing the above complaint is malafide to tarnish the reputation of the opposite party and its products for unlawful enrichment. There is no bonafide in the complaint. The complainant has not approached the opposite party for any services within one year as alleged. All the product of gulfgate hair fixing is qualitatively hygienic to human wearing. The customers on 1st visit wear demo and after their satisfaction the order and then the opposite party will collect money. The shampoo is given to the customers to smear over wig to maintain the condition of the hair to have a natural look of the hair. The customers should follow the instructions given by the company while using the gulfgate products. The opposite party is not liable for any consequences when customers are not following the specific instructions i.e. using other shampoo, cream, conditioner, comb and sticker etc. These facts are well instructed and trained to the complainant also. Moreover after sale, services are also available at free of cost and attended the complainant of the customers in time and regularly for each services there will be definite entry in the service card. In this case no complaint was brought to notice of opposite party and the complainant has never approached the opposite party as alleged. There is no deficiency of service. The complainant has approached the opposite party office at Palakkad only in the month of March 2013. Claiming that he had purchased the opposite party product on 26/12/2011 and demanded to colour the patch and cut his hair free of cost stating that he has not used the free services within the guarantee period of one year. The opposite party has told him that payment should be made for all services after the guarantee period to which he was not willing and he was violent and agitated and threatened the opposite party saying that he will teach a lesson and he knew how to extract money from the opposite party. The opposite party is neither negligent in their service nor the wig supplied to the complainant is defective. The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The complainant had not approached the opposite party for any service in any time within the guarantee period as alleged in the complaint. Complainant has apparently misused and mishandled the patch of the opposite party by using other products and finally came forward to extract money from the opposite party. Opposite party are not liable to take back the product or pay back the amount or to pay any compensation. Complainant has not suffered any mental loss amount demanded is exorbitant. And there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and hence complaint has to be dismissed.
Complainant filed chief affidavit opposite party filed application to cross examine the complainant, complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1-A5 was marked from the side of complainant. Disputed wig was marked as MO1. Opposite party was also filed affidavit complainant filed an application to send MO1(wig) to testing laboratory for quality analysis. Opposite party filed counter stating that the application is belated and the complainant had used the wig for 11/2 years . Application was allowed and the complainant was directed to furnish the details of the laboratory including the fees for testing. Complainant filed list of panel of experts. Complainant filed address of the laboratory enquiries regarding the details of fees was directed to report both parties were directed to file work memo complainant has not filed report regarding the fees. Opposite party has filed application stating that complainant has filed wrong address before the Forum and the laboratory stated by the complainant is not the one for testing regarding the quality of wig. On enquiry it was seen that complainant has furnished fake address. No correct address of the laboratory was brought to the notice of the Forum by either of the parties. Hence evidence was closed and matter was heard.
The issues that arises for consideration.
- Whether the alleged product is defective?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- If So what are the relief and costs?
ISSUES 1- 3
We have perused the documents produced before the Forum it is obvious from Ext.A2 and A3 that the complainant had done hair fixing from the opposite party on 26/7/2012 by spending an amount of Rs.10,500/-. During examination complainant had deposed that he had used the product for about 11/2 years and had availed three free services. The problem had started during that stages. The details of free services was not entered in the service card at the time of availing service. During free service the hair was dyed as black. He had also deposed that hair started falling about two months after fixation. He had availed the third service after six months of purchase by that time the colour had already faded and started falling down. The opposite party had promised to clarify the defect but they demanded money for rectification stating that guarantee period is already over. Admittedly there is defect to the product produced before the Forum. Only contention of the opposite party was that since the guarantee period is already over there is no deficiency on their part. Complainant had already used the product for 11/2 years. The complainant had taken steps to prove the quality of the wig by chemical analysis. But since the address of the laboratory cannot be traced out from any source. His attempt cannot be utilized. We have also perused the MO1 produced before the Forum. It is seen that there are spaces in between the hair and the natural colour is also faded. The Forum is at dark regarding whether it happened during the guarantee period itself. Even then the complainant had issued notice to the opposite party (Ext.A5) just after one year stating that the alleged wig is defective. It is evident to the naked eye that the product cannot be used by the complainant further. Hence we are of the view that the products supplied to the consumer does not contain the necessary standard. The opposite party had contented that there is no scientific or expert evidence to prove that the patch supplied to complainant is defective. Several attempts was made from the part of the complainant to analyze the quality of the wig. The complainant shall not suffer merely because of the non availability of the quality analysis laboratory, since the very defect can be noticed by the naked eye of any prudent person. Hence we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint is allowed. Hence we direct the opposite party to refund Rs.10,500/- to the complainant being the cost paid for the wig along with Rs.1,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him. We also direct to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Complaint allowed with cost as above. The aforesaid order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of August 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Order Card
.
Ext.A2 - Cash Bill (Retail Invoice) issued by opposite party to complainant for
Rs.7,350/- (Original) dt.26/12/2011.
Ext.A3 - Cash Bill (Retail Invoice) issued by opposite party to complainant for
Rs.3,150/- (Original) dt.26/12/2011.
Ext.A4 - Brochure and Advertisement issued and published by opposite party Gulf
Gate Hair Fixing (2 nos)
Ext.A5 - Copy of the Letterdt.12/3/2013 sent by the complainant to opposite
party along with original acknowledgement
MO1- Wig
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1- Razi.N.K
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- as cost.
