BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> C.C.No. 02/2008 Filed on 05.01.2008<br /> Dated : 15.07.2008<br /> Complainant :<br /> Radhika Sreenivasan, T.C 6/2326(4), Njaralathala, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> Opposite party:<br /> Sudhi, Twinkle Power Laundry, Krishna Kripa, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 10.06.2008, the Forum on 15.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> <br /> The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant Radhika Sreenivasan had entrusted the opposite party for dry cleaning her wedding sari as per bill No. 878. The due date was 26.07.2006, on that day the complainant approached the opposite party to take delivery of the sari. But the opposite party did not deliver the sari to the complainant. And thereafter several times the complainant and her husband approached the opposite party to get back the sari. But the opposite party did not turn up to give the sari and the opposite party harassed the complainant and her husband and behaved very badly. All efforts of the complainant to collect the sari from the opposite party failed. The lose of the wedding sari very seriously affected the complainant. For her it is very valuable one. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum for the redressal of her grievances. <br /> <br /> The opposite party in this case remained exparte. Complainant was examined as PW1 and one document marked as Ext. P1.<br /> <br /> Points to be considered:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant has produced the bill issued by the opposite party when the complainant had entrusted the wedding sari with the opposite party for dry cleaning. The bill was marked as Ext. P1. As per the bill the due date was on 26.07.2006. The case of the complainant is that the complainant approached the opposite party on 26.07.2006 to take delivery of the sari and thereafter several times she and her husband approached the opposite party's shop to collect the sari. But the opposite party did not return the sari after dry cleaning and the opposite party harassed them also. The opposite party is liable to give the sari to the complainant in time. As per the bill the due date was on 26.07.2006. It is the duty of the opposite party to give the sari on that day itself to the complainant. But he did not do so. The opposite party did not turn up in this case and contest the matter, nor they have denied the allegations levelled against them. So this Forum finds that the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and hence he is liable to pay compensation to the complainant due to that negligent act. The complainant states that it was her wedding sari and it was Kanchipuram silk and the price of the sari was Rs. 8000/-. Moreover for her, the wedding sari is most valuable one. Due to the lose of that sari the complainant sustained irreparable loss and injury and for the mental agony of the complainant the opposite party is liable to compensate. Though the loss caused to the complainant is not commutable in terms of money, the complainant has to be compensated for the sufferings caused to her. One can understand the condition of the complainant when one puts oneself in the place of the complainant. For the foregoing discussions this Forum finds that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for her mental agony due to the deficiency in service and negligence of the opposite party. We find that Rs. 2000/- is sufficient as compensation. <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to return the same sari to the complainant or to pay the cost of the sari Rs. 8000/-, and also direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 2000/- as compensation. No order as to cost. Time for compliance two months failing which the above mentioned amount shall carry interest at 12%. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th July 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.C.No. 02/2008<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS: <br /> PW1 - Radhika Sreenivasan<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> <br /> P1 - Copy of cash/credit bill No. 878 for Rs. 45/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />