BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

12^th DAY OF APRIL 2016

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to refund the cost of the sari Rs.3,350/-, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment and Rs.1,450/- towards other expenditure.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant purchased a silk sari from OP showroom on 03.05.2015 by paying Rs.3,350/- through ICICI Bank credit card.  When the complainant used the sari on an occasion it was found that sari had lost its colour on many places.  The defect was shown to the owner of the shop.  He kept the sari with him for a month and returned the same without replacement or refund of the money.  So the complainant has to suffer loss due to defective item supplied by the OP.  On 26.08.2015 the complainant issued a letter to OP requesting to replace the sari or refund the money.  OP did not respond to the complainant’s request.  Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP.

For the aforesaid reasons, complainant prays for directing OP to refund the cost of the sari Rs.3,550/-, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and other expenditures.   

3. Notice of complaint was issued to OP and despite service of notice, OP failed to appear and contest the complaint and has been placed ex-parte.  Thereafter, the complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence.

4. Perused the averments made in the complaint, affidavit filed in lieu of oral evidence and documents filed by the complainant.

5. The complainant purchased silk sari from OP on 03.05.2015 by paying Rs.3,500/- through ICICI credit card.  The complainant used the sari on 28.05.2015 and all of a sudden it rained and due to the showers big patches appeared on the sari and it also lost colour on many places.  Photographs to that effect are also produced.  The defect was shown to the OP at their showroom and they assured that the matter will be discussed with the manufacturer and the company will replace/refund the price of the sari.  On 24^th August 2015 when the complainant visited the shop of OP, they informed that, the defect cannot be rectified by the company as being manufacturing defect and they are unable to replace or refund the money.

6. The defect was shown to the OP, he kept the sari with him for a month with a assurance to replace or refund but the OP returned the same to the complainant without any favourable action.  Even the complainant issued a letter to the OP requesting to replace the defective sari or refund the money, OP did not respond to the complainant’s request.  The complainant having paid a sum of Rs.3,550/- for purchasing the sari, she is unable to use and enjoy the same.  The defect in the sari could not be resolved by the OP.  Therefore, it is evident that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Due to the irresponsible behavior on the part of OP, the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony.  The conduct of the OP in not providing better-quality sari amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on their part.

7. The very fact of OP not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant.  There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced.  The complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony due to non performance of the promise made by the OP.  The complainant was unable to make use of the sari and this has put her to great hardship and inconvenience.  Certainly she must have suffered mental agony and financial loss because of not using after its purchase.  The OP did not appear and contest the claim of the complainant.  We do not find any reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.  We are satisfied that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service against OP.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that, OP is liable to refund Rs.3,550/- to the complainant.  Further the OP has to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.2,500/-. 

8. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

       O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OP is directed to refund Rs.3,550/- to the complainant towards the cost of sari.  Further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused along with litigation cost of Rs.2,500/-. 

OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 12^th day of April 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

COMPLAINT No.1810/2015

Complainant                 -        Suman Kotnala,

Bangalore-560006.

                                          -vs-

Opposite Party              -        The Branch Manager,

M/s Alankar Fashion,

Bangalore-560032.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 03.03.2016.

1. Suman Kotnala

   Witnesses examined on behalf of OP – Nil.

   Documents produced by the OP - Nil

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*