DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday the 29^nd day of November 2024

CC.38/2022

Complainant

Biju Abraham,

S/o. Abraham,

Chckalayil (HO),

Tengipalam. P.O,

Malappuram - 673636

Opposite Party

The Manager,

Sangeeth Silks,’

CSI Jubilee Ground,

Near Ashoka Hospital,

Opp. CHM Over Bridge,

Bank Road,

Calicut – 673001

(By Adv. Sri. K.P. Sreenesh)

ORDER

By Sri.V.BALAKRISHNAN  - MEMBER

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

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 19/11/2021 the complainant purchased certain dress materials from the show room of the opposite party as per the bill No. CB 36151 and 236396. An amount of Rs. 15,575/- was paid by him. The item 6 of the bill, a pure handloom saree was purchased for his wife to wear in the family function on 29/11/2021. Payment made to the opposite party for this specific item was Rs. 7,590/-. When the saree was taken for use on the day of the function she found that it was a defective piece. The thread lines were loose in some portion and visible while wearing it. His wife could not wear the saree in the function intended and she was totally distressed.

3. The opposite party was approached to get it replaced and the concerned person accepted the goods along with the retail invoice. When he asked for a receipt of acknowledgement the person representing the opposite party informed that their usual practice was to accept the defective stock along with the retail invoice and told that the complainant would be contacted later. After a few days when he approached the opposite party the saree was given back stating that it was repaired. The complainant told them that he was not willing to accept a repaired saree. The opposite party was not ready to give a replacement as the blouse piece attached to the saree was separated and blouse was stitched using lining materials purchased  from outside. The stitching charge and the price of lining material amounted to Rs. 1,000/-. In the family function, the wife of the complainant could not wear the newly purchased saree as it was defective. She got dejected on that auspicious occasion. Hence the complainant prays to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 13,590/- as the value of the goods and the expenditure incurred for the proceedings. He also demands compensation.
4. The opposite party filed version. Almost all the allegations in the complaint are denied by him. He admitted that as per bill No. CB 36151 and 236396, the complainant purchased dress materials from the shop on 19/10/2021, paying an amount of Rs. 15,575/-. The cost of the handloom saree included in that purchase was Rs. 7,590/-. The complainant purchased all the dress materials after careful examination and with full satisfaction. Already he was instructed not to hand wash the handloom saree instead of dry washing. The wife of the complainant hand washed the saree before the first use and that is the reason she met with this difficulty. When the complainant approached to get it replaced it was already informed to him that the replacement was not possible, and for the rectification the material along with retail invoice was collected. The blouse piece attached to the saree was cut and stitched by the complainant. Hence according to the opposite party the complainant’s wife had already used the piece. The opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint as the defect appeared on the saree was due to the mistake of the wife of the complainant, by doing hand washing.    
5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

1. Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?

2) Reliefs and costs.

6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 and A2 were marked. MO1 is also marked.
7. Heard.
8. Point No 1: In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. He has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. Ext A1 is the retail invoice No. CB36151 and 236396 of the opposite party and Ext A2 is the stitching bill from the stitching centre. MO1 is the handloom saree purchased from the opposite party.
9. The specific case of the complainant is that the new handloom saree purchased by him from the opposite party was defective. The defect was noticed by his wife when she attempted to wear it to participate in function. From Ext A1 it is clear that the cost of the saree is Rs. 7,590/-. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party received back the saree along with the invoice. It is true that while receiving back the product in dispute, the opposite party admitted about the defects noticed in it. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased dress materials of worth Rs. 15,575/- on the  same day from the shop of the opposite party. There is no complaint raised about any other dress materials except  the handloom saree. It is the general habit of all ladies to wear the new saree in the newly purchased condition without washing. Also there is no evidence shown by opposite party that the saree was hand washed before use. Being a 4mt dress material a buyer of the saree might not examine each and every corner to identify any defect before purchase. Generally purchasers of saree look for the colour and the texture on purchase.
10. With the evidence in hand, it is proved beyond any doubt that the saree sold to the complainant was a defective one. So the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice by selling a defective product to the complainant. The complainant is to be compensated adequately. The complainant is eligible to get  back the amount paid for the saree. Also he is eligible to get the cost of proceedings.  
11. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                 a)  CC.38/2022 is allowed.

b) The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs. 7,590/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred and ninety only) to the complainant. On completion of payment, the opposite party can take back MO1 from this Commission.

c) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.

d) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant as cost of proceedings.

e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 7,590/- shall bear 9% interest from the date of this order till actual payment.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29^th  day of November, 2024.

Date of Filing: 31/01/2022

                                         Sd/-                                                              Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

                               PRESIDENT                                                   MEMBER                                             MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Retail invoice No. CB36151 and 236396 of the opposite party.

Ext.A2 – Stitching bill from the stitching centre.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  Biju Abraham (Complainant)

Material Object

MO1 - Handloom saree purchased from the opposite party.

                                       Sd/-                                                              Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

                               PRESIDENT                                                   MEMBER                                             MEMBER

True Copy,     

                                                                                                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                             Assistant Registrar.