SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019,seeking direction against OP to pay Rs.5,11,100/- towards the advance amount cost incurred during the purchase of items supplied by OP and also for mental hardship.
Complaint in brief:-
The complainant joined one year Mohiniyattam course with OP and paid Rs.15,000/- out of Rs.22500/- which was the actual fees. The complainant was also teaching dance to small children at her native place and she require dance costume, ornaments etc for debut of her students on 17/10/2023 and the OP promised to provide the required items on credit and the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as advance out of total consideration fixed ie Rs.1,21,805/-. On 10/10/2023, complainant received 7 costumes and one other dress for dance performance which were old and used one and this was addressed to OP and the OP failed to provide the costumes and other properties as per the requirement of complainant. The complainant has to try the costumes with her students before their debut and faced lot of trouble and the complainant collected dance costume from another person. On the payment of Rs.5100/- as rent and the complainant managed the dance performance of her students. The OP tried to defame complainant and filed a petition before the Aluva police station and the petition was closed on the basis of lack of evidence. The OP demanded balance amount of the consideration for the used materials she supplied. The complainant suffered hardship and pecuniary loss for the deficiency in service practiced by OP. Hence this complaint.
After filing the complaint the Commission sent notice to OP . The OP’s notice is returned with an endorsement “addressee left”, hence it is presumed that the notice was duly served .The OP has not appeared before the commission and not filed any version, So the commission came into a conclusion that the case proceed against the OP is set exparte.
Even though the OP has remained exparte it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the OP hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce affidavit along with 3 documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the receipt of rented dance items issued by Ammus Dance collections dtd.18/10/2023, Ext.A2 is the courier receipt dtd.20/10/2023 and Ext.A3(series) is the screenshot of google pay. The complainant was examined as PW1 . So the OP is remain absent in this case. At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance into the available evidences produced before the Commission to answer that whether there is any deficiency in service as prayed in the complaint.
On the perusal of Ext.A1, it is seen that on 16/10/2023 complainant took items specified in Ext.A1 for Rs.5100/- from Ammus dance collection for rent. Ext.A2 is the courier receipt dtd.20/10/2023 worth Rs.1000/- sent by complainant to OP, which complainant claims that she returned the articles received from OP due to the poor quality. According to complainant, she gave an advance amount of Rs.15,000/- out of Rs.22,500/- in order to learn Mohiniyattam course. But , the complainant not mentioned the date of joining with OP. In Ext.A3 series, the transaction made on August 17th which is the older transactions among other transactions, is of Rs.5000/-. There is no other evidence like receipts or acknowledgment of payment of advance amount of Rs.15,000/- from the OP is produced by complainant to prove the payment of Rs.10,000/- for course fee. Regarding to the payment of articles ie, Rs.50,000/- for Mohiniyattam which complainant was booked with OP, were seen in the google transactions which was marked in Ext.A3 series. On September 30th ,Rs.25,000/- , on 20/10/2023 Rs.10,000/- , on October 12th Rs.15,000/- respectively was deducted from complainant’s google pay account and credited towards OP. Hence , a total amount of Rs.50,000/- excluding the payment of Rs.5000/- for course advance was made by complainant to OP is clear. Moreover , Ext.A2 dtd.20/10/2023 worth Rs.1000/- speaks that articles was sent back to OP by complainant. Even though there is no other evidence to show that the payment of Rs.10,000/- which was the course advance, other transactions in Ext.A3 series proves the payment of Rs.50000/- and Rs.5000/- which was said to be paid as course advance. Hence the commission came into a conclusion that OP practiced deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by providing low quality materials which complainant constrained to sent back and there by complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost.
In the result complaint is allowed in part ,Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/-towards the advance amount of the articles sent by opposite party to the complainant,and also pay Rs.5000/- which was the course advance paid by complainant to the opposite party to learn Mohiniyattam and also pay Rs.5100/- the rent amount of dance articles. The opposite party also pay Rs.1000/- which is the courier fee. And also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default, the amount of Rs.61,000/-(ie Rs.50,000+Rs.5000+Rs.5100+Rs.1000)- carries interest@ 12% per annum from the date of order till realization. If the OP fails to comply the order, the complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1.Receipt issued by Ammus collections
A2- courier receipt
A3(series)- Screen shot of google pay
PW1-Sanila.T.K- complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
