By Sri.  A.S. Subhagan,  Member:

          This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

          2. Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant had purchased  a “Parda” from the Opposite Party for Rs.2,400/-.  The Complainant kept the Parda,   after washing it, in a shelf, as it was Covid Pandemic period.  After  one month,  when the Complainant tried to wear the  Parda,  it was  seen like pinned  and damaged.  The  very next day itself, the Complainant went to the Opposite Party’s shop named ‘Parda House’ and they had agreed to replace the damaged Parda after one week.  After one week,  when the Complainant visited the shop,  the proprietor handed over a cover containing a Parda and told the Complainant to vacate the shop,  as other customers were there.  On opening the cover from there itself, the Complainant found the same Parda which was purchased from that shop, without settling the  complaint.  The Complainant had purchased the Parda from Parda House  as the Opposite Party had agreed to replace it, if any complaint is seen later.  At the time of purchase, the Opposite Party had convinced the  Complainant that  the Parda was imported one  having good quality and  a new model.  But  the Opposite Party was not ready to replace the damaged Parda.  Instead they  denied replacement saying the Complainant to file  case against them,  with filthy  words which caused mental agony to the Complainant.  Hence,  this complaint with the following prayers.

1. To direct the Opposite Party to refund Rs.2,400/-  being    the price of the    

 Parda with 15% interest.

2. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.50,000/-  towards compensation and
3. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/-  towards cost of this complaint.

3. Notice  was served to the Complainant for appearance.  The Opposite Party

appeared before the Commission and filed version. 

          4. Contents of version in brief:-  The Complainant had not purchased any Parda from the Opposite Party.  The Complainant has not mentioned the date of purchase of the Parda in the  complaint.  All other allegations in the complaint are denied by the Opposite Party.  The Complainant has no right to get Rs.2,400/-  with interest at the rate of 15%,  compensation of Rs.50,000/-  and cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Hence,  it is prayed  to dismiss  the complaint with compensatory cost of the Opposite Party.

          5. Affidavit was filed by the Complainant and Exts.A1 and A2  were marked from her side.  Ext.A1 is the cash bill issued by the Opposite Party shop and Ext.A2 is the price tag of the  product with the name of the Opposite Party shop and she was examined as PW1.  The Opposite Party had no oral or documentary evidence and the complaint was finally heard  on 30.03.2023.

          6. On the basis of the complaint, version, affidavit of the Complainant, oral deposition,  the documents marked and the arguments in hearing  we raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party?
2. If so  relief and cost?

7. Point No.1:-  The Complainant’s case is that she had  purchased a ‘Parda’

from the  Opposite Party shop and when it was got  damaged,  the Opposite  Party did not replace it,  as agreed up on at the time of purchase.  But  the contention of the Opposite Party is that  the Complainant had not purchased the Parda from their shop and also stated  that the Complainant has not stated  the date of purchase of the Parda in the  complaint.  Ext.A1, which is  a cash bill produced and marked from the side of the Complainant reveals that it is the cash bill issued from the shop of the Opposite Party  “Parda House”,   amounting  to Rs.2,400/-  on 25.11.2020.   But the name of  the consumer is not seen written on the cash bill.  It is the duty of the seller or the  proprietor to issue cash bills with the name of the consumer.  We find that the Opposite  Party has issued the bill with an evil  motive without  mentioning the name of the  consumer so as to escape from their future liability,  if a complaint arise as to the product, after sale.  It is evident that  Ext.A1 is issued by the Opposite Party shop Parda House charging Rs.2,400/- and so the contention of the Opposite party that the Complainant had not purchased any Parda  from the Opposite Party shop is seen false.  Another contention of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant had not   mentioned the date of purchase of  the Parda in the complaint.  This  contention of the Opposite Party  cannot be accepted as the date of  purchase of the Parda has been entered on the cash bill and the affidavit.  The Opposite party has  also contented that the Complainant has not produced the damaged Parda before the Commission but in oral examination,  the Complainant has deposed that the material object is with the Opposite Party  which had not been returned by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.  The Complainant who is a young lady whose  deposition which is a sworn statement not to be disbelieved.  Moreover,  in the facts and circumstances of the case,  deficient,  unfair and unscrupulous  acts are seen done  from the part of the Opposite  Party.  Selling low quality products ensuring replacement in the event when  damage or complaint occurres and not acting  as agreed upon amounts to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.  Here,  there has been unfair trade practice /deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party for which they are liable to the Complainant.  So,  point  No.1 is proved in favour of the  Complainant.

          8.  Point No.2:-  As point No.1 is proved  in favour of the  Complainant,  she is entitled to get the relief  prayed for but the amount of compensation and cost prayed for is seen exorbitant.  So  in our view  the Complainant has a right to get Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/-  towards cost.

          In the result,  the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is ordered to:-

1.  Refund Rs.2,400/-  (Rupees Two thousand Four hundred  only) being the price of the damaged Parda, with  interest  at the rate of 8%  per annum from the date of this  complaint.
2. Pay Rs.15,000/-  (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation and
3. Pay Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost of this complaint.

The   above    amounts    shall   be   paid  by   the  Opposite Party    to   the

Complainant within one month from the date of this  complaint, failing which  the amounts will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of this order.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Commission on this the 12^th  day of April 2023.  

Dated of filing:15.01.2021.                                                                 

PRESIDENT :   Sd/-

  MEMBER    :    Sd/-

  MEMBER   :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          Sajitha.                           Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.             Bill.                               

A2.             Price Tag.             

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.  

                                                                                    PRESIDENT :   Sd/-               

MEMBER     :   Sd/-

MEMBER     :   Sd/-