By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> Petitioner’s case is as follows:-<br /> <br /> Petitioner is the Principal of Govt. T.T.I., Chalakkudy. She had entrusted a Saree worth Rs.4500/- to the 1st respondent for dry cleaning on 2/5/07. It was a very good saree and she liked it very much. The respondents promised that the Saree will be returned after dry cleaning on 9/5/07 and a receipt is issued. When she had approached the respondents for the said Saree, it was said that the saree is missing. She wanted the respondents to settle the matter amicably by paying the cost of the saree. The respondents were not amenable. On 20/6/07 lawyer notice was sent and it is returned as “refused”. So the petition is moved.<br /> <br /> 2. Both the respondents are the same person. The notice issued from the Forum to the respondents is returned as “closed and left” and paper publication is ordered.. After the publication also the respondents are absent to the Forum. So on 21/2/08, the respondents were called absent and set exparte <br /> <br /> 3. To prove the case of the petitioner, she has filed the Affidavit and 4 documents, The documents are marked as Exts.P1 to P4.<br /> <br /> 4. Heard the Counsel.<br /> <br /> 5. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to receive the price of the saree lost from the respondents. She also demands compensation for mental agony and costs. There is no defence evidence, since the respondents are set exparte. <br /> <br /> 6. In this case there is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents. They have to answer for that. So the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.4500/- as the price of the saree and Rs 1000/- as the compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- towards the costs. Comply the order within one month. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 27th day of March 2008.<br />