This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay `900 as price of cloth and `300 as stitching charge and `2500 as compensation.

          The complainant contended that he had entrusted linen cloth before 1^st opposite party for stitching two shirts and the 1^st opposite party has taken necessary measurement and promised that the same will be given within  one week. After stitching the complainant has took delivery of his shirts by paying `300 as stitching charge. But when he tried to wear the same it was not in a condition to wear since it was not stitched as per the measurements of the complainant so the complainant along with his friend Abdul Javed approached the 1^st opposite party and he promised that it will be altered or will give another shirt. But even after repeated demand the opposite parties were not ready to return the shirt and insulted the complainant. So the complainant issued a lawyer notice, but even after receipt of the same the opposite party was not ready to reply the same. Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum 1^st opposite party appeared and filed his version. 2^nd opposite party absent even after proper notice was served by way of publication, so he was called absent and exparte. The 1^st opposite party filed version stating that he is only an employee and being an employee his only work is to carryout stitching works which used to be parted by its owner. So the 1^st opposite party is concerned about the wages as every stitched piece and is nothing to do with the alleged amount of `300. According to the 1^st opposite party none had an occasion to approach the Miracle Tailors and put forth an allegation that the shirts were not in conformity with the measurements of a customer. So the complaint is ill motivate and speculation and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and DW1 and A1 to A4 and MO1.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

            The complainant contended that the two shirts entrusted to opposite parties for stitching were stitched not according to the measurements of the complainant and hence he cannot wear the same. To prove his case PW1 and PW2 were examined and produced Bill from Soundarya Textiles, copy of lawyer notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement card reply notice and one of the shirts. To disprove the case 1^st opposite party also examined as DW1. The 1^st opposite party contended that he is not the proprietor of miracle tailors and only one employee under the institution and was paid for the piece work done by him. He also denied that he has not stitched the MO1 and also denied that there was no such situation as stated in the complaint in the institution. The complainant has miserably failed to produce any document connecting the complainant and opposite parties. The PW2 witness is an interested witness and hence much weightage cannot be given to his testimony. Moreover no documents were produced before the Forum to corroborate his evidence. Moreover, from the appearance of MO1 no defect is seen noticed. So we are not in a position to attribute any deficiency of service upon the opposite parties, since the complainant miserably failed to prove the same. So we hold the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and passed order accordingly.

In the result, the complaint dismissed. No cost.

                              Sd/-                         Sd/-                                                   

                        President                     Member   

APPENDIX                              

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Bill issued by Soundharya Textiles

A2. Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A3. Postal receipt and AD

A4 Reply notice

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

PW2. Abdul Jawad

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1. C.K.Kumaran

                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                          Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.