By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an order directing the Opposite Party to replace the damaged Churidar with a new one of the same price and to pay the cost and compensation.
2. The Complainant's case in brief is as follows:- The Complainant on 12.11.2013 purchased certain dress materials from the shop of Opposite Party for a total price of Rs.7,001/-. Among this dress materials, there is one Churidar which costs Rs.2,135/-. The Complainant when tried to use the churidar, the Complainant found that the churidar material is a damaged one. The Complainant cannot use it and so the Complainant informed the Opposite Party and showed the material. But the Opposite Party refused to replace it or pay back the price stating that the churidar material is already used by the Complainant. The Opposite Party then made a suggestion that the Opposite Party is ready to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of Churidar. The Complainant was not ready to accept Rs.1,000/- for the value of Churidar. Aggrieved by this the Complainant preferred this complaint.
3. On receipt of complaint , notice was issued to the Opposite Party and Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version the Opposite Party admitted the purchase. The Opposite Party stated that the Complainant after due care and testing had purchased the material. The Complainant used the material in a careless manner and might have sustained damage. The Opposite Party is not responsible to it. The churidar material produced by the Complainant requires Dry wash for the first time. But the Complainant washed it with detergent and it caused damage to the material. There is no manufacture defect to the material and the Opposite Party never take back and replace a material which is already washed by the customer. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Party. The complaint is not filed bonafied and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost of the Opposite Party.
4. The case is then posted for the evidence of Complainant and for filing proof affidavit of Complainant. After filing complaint, the Complainant never appeared before the Forum. The case is posted for the appearance of Complainant and for evidence of Complainant on 13.02.2014. On 13.02.2014 the Complainant did not appear for evidence. Again the case is posted for the evidence of Complainant on 24.02.2014. On 24.02.2014 due to the absence of complainant, the case is posted to 01.03.2014, On 01.03.2014, due to Harthal, the case is posed to 03.04.2014, On 03.04.2014, the Forum ordered registered notice to the Complainant and posted to 30.04.2014 and then to 20.05.2014. The notice is served to the Complainant on 13.05.2014, the case was already posted to 20.05.2014. On 20.05.2014 even after getting registered notice to the Complainant directing him to appear before the Forum on 20.05.2014, the Complainant did not appear. Therefore, the Forum found that the Complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.
5. The Opposite Party appeared before the Forum after appointing an advocate and filed version. The Opposite Party appeared in the Forum in all postings through their counsel. Thereby the Opposite party might have incurred much expense. If compensatory cost is not ordered in this case, that may cause injustice to the Opposite Party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed with a compensatory cost of Rs. 1,000/-
(Rupees One thousand) only to the Opposite Party. The Complainant is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Opposite Party within 30 days of the receipt of this order failing which the opposite Party can take execution proceedings against the Complainant.
Dictated to the C.A transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of May 2014.
Date of filing: 04.12.2013.
