BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of March 2014
Filed on : 18/12/2012
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC. No. 791/2012
Between
V.S. Ashokan, : Complainant
Sreepadam, (party-in-person)
Thondankulangara Ward,
Avalookunnu P.O., Alappuzha-6.
Vs
M/s. Jayalakshmi, : Opposite party
M.G. Road, Cochin-682 035. (By Adv. Saji Isaac K.J.,
Rep. by its Manager. 311,HB. Flats, Panampilly Nagar,
Kochi-682 036)
O R D E R
Sheen Jose, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Kanchipuram Sari worth Rs. 15,850/- for his daughter to wear on the wedding day. When the said sari was worn by his daughter on the wedding day it was noticed that the silk threads were loosely knitted and the sari was in damaged stage. The complainant approached the opposite party to get the sari replaced but they offer only to repair the sari. The opposite party was issued with notice highlighting the grievances of the complainant, to which the opposite party turned a blind eye.. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the
opposite party to refund the price of the sari together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:
The sari purchased by the complainant is of a brocade Kanchipuram Weaving pattern called weaving butta or running butta and the threads of such kinds of weaving will be seen on the back side of the sari. The finished outer side will not have loose ends and the weaving threads are joined on the back side. The complainant had paid for the cost of the sari according to the material with loose threads on the back side. The complainant could have got a net fixed on the back side of the sari so that the threads could not be seen, if he wanted, which would have cost him more. The complainant had purchased the sari after seeing the sari and had selected this type for his use considering the cost. The sari was purchased by the complainant after it was draped on the daughter of the complainant at the shop to see if it suits her. The sari is free from any defect and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on his side. The witness of the opposite party was examined as DW1. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the opposite party.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the
sari?
ii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs
of the proceedings?
5. Point Nos. i&ii. According to the complainant he purchased a sari from the opposite party at a price of Rs. 15.850/- for his daughter to wear on the wedding day. It is stated that on the date of marriage he came to know that the sari suffers from manufacturing defects. The opposite party maintains that there is no evidence on record to prove the allegations of the complainant and the sari under question is free from any defects.
6. Admittedly apart from the oral testimony of the complainant nothing is on record to prove the manufacturing defect of the sari. Apart from the oral testimony of the complainant. During evidence he deposed that he had no occasion to examine the sari on the date of purchase. On the contrary the witness for the opposite party who was examined as DW1 deposed that the complainant, his daughter and wife thoroughly examined the sari at the time of purchase. The absence of any convincing and cogent evidence regarding the manufacturing defect of the sari in question we are only to uphold the contentions of the opposite party that the sari is in a particular pattern which cannot be termed as manufacturing defect. Since the complainant failed to establish the defect of the sari with cogent and convincing evidence we are only to reject the averments of the complainant.
7. Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of March 2014.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits:
Ext. A1 : Lawyer notice dt. 09-08-2012
A2 : Copy of statement 11/03/2012
Opposite party’s Exhibits: : Nil
Depositions :
PW1 : Asokan V.S.
