IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 23rd day of September, 2021
Filed on 05.11.2019
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.285/2019
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Krishnakumari 1. Sri . Babu, Snow-white
Rajsuma Nivas Dry cleaners & Sari Polishing
Mutttom.P.O, Haripad Darning, Near Warriath
(party in person) Complex, Nangyarkulangara
Haripad.
2. Sri. Babu, Snow white
Dry cleaners & Sari Polishing
Darning, Rajdhani Building
Ezhikkakath Junction, Haripard (Adv. Sri. Chandra Babu for Ops)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
Facts of complainant’s case in brief are as follows:-
Complainant’s husband given her a saree worth Rs.4000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) as wedding anniversary gift on February 2018. She used the same for two occasions. Thereafter on 15/8/2019 she had entrusted it along with another saree to the 1st opposite party’s dry cleaning centre for dry wash the same and paid Rs.260/- as the charge. Opposite party agreed to deliver the same on 30/8/2019 but he failed to return the items in time as he agreed. Various occasions complainant approached opposite party’s both dry cleaning centers, at last she got it on 26/9/2019. On verification she found the disputed saree seen in a damaged condition. She enquired about it to the shop owner Mr. Babu. He told that it happened during the time of bleaching and he is ready to replace it with a new saree, at last the complainant forced to agree with him. Later she approached him for new saree as he agreed but he behaved indifferently towards the complainant. The said acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and also caused mental agony. Thereafter the complainant approached this Commission for seeking following reliefs from the opposite parties.
(i) direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) being the price of damaged saree to the complainant.
(ii) compensation towards deficiency of service, mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version of opposite parties in short are as follows:-
Opposite party denied all the allegations in the complaint. According to him there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party since the dry cleaning shops as she mentioned in the complaint are not belongs to the opposite party. He is not the owner of the ‘Snow white dry cleaners and Saree polishing centre’. There is no transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties. All the allegation in the complaint is untrue and without any merits. The complainant did not entrust any material to the opposite party for dry cleaning on 15/8/2019. As per the information it was learnt that the entrusted material as per the bill were delivered to the complainant in time. The opposite parties did not give any promise to the complainant that as alleged by the complainant. There is no merit in the complaint. Hence it is to be dismissed.
3. The complainant appeared in person oral evidence adduced by her as PW1, Ext.A1 and A2 were marked from her side. Opposite party appeared through the counsel. The summoned witness from his side was present and examined as RW1, but he and his counsel were abstained from the proceedings. Hence the chief was taken by the Commission and Ext. X1 was marked. Thereafter no representation from opposite party, we have heard the complainant.
4. The points that arise for consideration are that:-
1). Whether the complainant is entitled to get the price of the garment in question?
2) Compensation and cost if any?
5. Point No. 1 and 2:-
We have perused the documents on records Ext.A1 dated 15/8/2019 is the receipt issued by opposite party to the complainant, which shows the transaction between the parties. Ext.A2 is the picture, shown the damages of the saree and the damages appeared in the ‘Munthani’ part of the saree. The contention of the opposite parties that he is not owned or conducting any dry cleaning shops and he is only conducting vegetable shop. For proving his version summoned Rw1, the Grama Panchayath Secretary, for the production of Ext.X1 licence and Permission Register under their custody in which shown the names of licences conducting shop for the period in between 2019 to 2020. As per Ext.X1 during said period Panchayath issued licencees infavour of the opposite party and before the said period, as per register, did not issue licence infavour of the opposite party. During cross examination RW1 deposed that. “kvYm]\w ssek³kv CÃmsX {]hÀ¯n¨p ImWm³ km[yXbpv. ssek³kv Bhiys¸«m am{Xta ]©mb¯v sImSp¡mdpffp. 2018þ19 Ime¯v Øm]\w {]hÀ¯n¨ncpt¶m F¶dnbnÃ.”
It appears that after taken steps to issue summons to RW1, opposite party and his counsel deliberately abstained from the proceedings. On going through the contention raised by the opposite party that he had never conducting any dry cleaning shops and he is not the owner of the dry cleaning shops as alleged by the complainant. As per the evidence it is clear that opposite party utterly failed to prove his contention with the support of any evidence. As per Ext.A2 we found that the garment in question is in a damaged condition and it beyond use. Yet the opposite party was not willing to replace the garment with a new one. The above acts of opposite party itself attribute deficiency of service. Moreover, it is clear from the evidence that complainant suffered mental agony. In view of this frame of mind, complainant seeks legal remedy for the redressal of her grievance. We see no reason to disbelieve the complainant and conclude that, in absence of purchase bill of the disputed saree, we cannot order the price of saree under dispute. However, we have already found that due to the acts of opposite party the complainant suffered mental agony and committed the deficiency of service by the opposite party. Both ways complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party and also get cost of the proceedings. Since opposite party push the complainant into an unnecessary litigation
6. In short we allow the complaint in part as follows:-
1. Opposite party shall pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency of service and also pay compensation for Rs.3000/- towards mental agony to the complainant.
2. The opposite party shall pay Rs.2000/- by way of litigation cost of the complainant.
Failing which the amount covered under the head No.(1) shall carry interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 23rd day of September, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Krishnakumari.S(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Receipt.
Ext.A2 - Photograph.
Ext.X1 - Licence and Permission Register
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Rw1 - Sreelekha G.S (Witness)
//True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
