DATE OF FILING : 04.08.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.165/2010
Between
Complainant : N.Rajendran,
Edasseril House,
Vengalloor P.O,
Thodupuzha- 685 584,
Idukki District.
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
Khadi Grama Sowbhagya Office Complex,
Kanjiramattom Bye Pass Road,
Thodupuzha P.O, Idukki District.
2. The Project Officer,
District Khadi & Village Industries Office,
Idukki, Kanjiramattom Bye Pass Road,
Thodupuzha P.O, Idukki District.
3. The Managing Director,
Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(All By Advs: N.Chandran & Sunny Mathew)
O R D E R
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
The complainant is a retired District Lottery Officer. The opposite parties are Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board. The complainant, when he was in service, on 29.08.2009 he had purchased certain dress materials from the Ist opposite party. He bought the materials under Govt. Employees credit facility, the total amount was Rs.7206.85. Among the dress materials there were 5 dothies, three were of Rs.433/-, the 4th one is of Rs.551/- and the 5th one is of Rs.378/-. These dothies became defective after washing. Complainant stated that these dothies became worn out and colour changed in the 'Kara'. He informed the fact to the opposite party but no remedy has provided. Then he approached to the 2nd opposite party also. Complainant produced bill of the Ist opposite party and defective dothies to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party was agreed to take necessary steps. On 18.06.2010 the complainant received a reply from the 2nd opposite party, the reply was not satisfactory to the complainant. Hence he filed this petition before the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and also for getting a direction for cost and compensation from the opposite parties.
2. The opposite parties filed written version. In the written version the opposite parties admitted the credit transaction of the petitioner. As per Bill Number 39150 the complainant purchased the dress materials from the Ist opposite party is admitted. Again the opposite parties admitted the complaint of the petitioner dated 16.04.2010. The opposite parties stated that the complainant is not personally present at the time. The complainant had selected his dress materials from the latest bundle. The bundle of 2009 November was the latest one, from which the complainant selected his clothes. No other complaint is reported for the items of this bundle. The opposite party had given a written reply to the petitioner by post on 18.06.2010 because the complainant is not personally present there. The opposite parties are Govt. undertaking, they are strictly supplying qualitative product in the market. The main contention is that the petitioner forwarded his petition after a lapse of 8 months, in such a long period the opposite party could not accept his complaint. So they are helpless in the grievance of the complainant.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. Complainant filed his authorisation through his own brother, who produced evidence. Complainant has no oral evidence. Exts.P1(series) to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- Ext.P1(a) is copy of Bill No.39150 dated 29.08.2009 for Rs.1902.65 issued by the opposite party. Ext.P1(b) is copy of another Bill for Rs.3142.25 issued by the opposite party. These two exhibits shows the transaction. Ext.P2 is the copy of complainant's complaint dated 16.04.2010 addressed to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.P3 is also a petition dated 29.10.2009 addressed to the Manager, Kerala Khadi Board. The 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and marked Ext.R1. Ext.R1 is copy of circular of the 3rd opposite party to all Khadi Showroom Managers. Exts.P1(a) and P1(b) shows that complainant is a consumer and have consideration also. Ext.P2 and P3 are the written complaints of the petitioner to the opposite parties. The opposite parties are Kerala Govt. undertaking. DW1 admitted that Ext.P2 complaint was received by her and is aware of that the disputed clothes were produced by the brother of the complainant before their office. DW1 admitted that the disputed dothies were produced at their office. But she never counted the number of dothies produced. Never opened the clothes. They were dirty, one of them was teared. Ist time when the complainant's brother approached, the bills were not produced. The second time the bills and the dothies were produced. As per the complainant the clothes were produced within two months, a complaint was given to the Ist opposite party within two months. Another complaint was given to the Managing Director of the opposite party. The Managing Director told the complainant's brother to inform the Ist opposite party to call the Managing Director through telephone. But the Ist opposite party misbehaved to the complainant's brother. He also not aware whether it is the Managing Director or the Secretary, he only talked through telephone. The number is 04712471696. Complainant had produced the defective and disputed dothies for inspection of the Forum. While on cross examination DW1 identified the clothes which were purchased by the complainant and noticed the defect on the same. The colour of the border has been faded and also teared. The threads are also widened. Anyhow it is the duty of the opposite party to satisfy the customer. To maintain good customer relation is one and most important duty of a business concern. As a Government undertaking the officials must keep good customer relations. Here the complainant had presented the defective dothies in front of the Ist opposite party, but the opposite parties did not take any positive action. It is a gross unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Complainant approached to the higher officials of the opposite parties also, but his grievance is not redressed. As per the reply of the opposite party, to the complaint made by the complainant, the opposite party will replace the clothes if there is any defect only before the use. So we find deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,559/- to the complainant, which is the cost of the clothes and also pay Rs.1,500/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of November, 2010
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
I agree SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
Nil
On the side of Opposite Parties :
DW1 - C.R.Jayalakshmi
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1(a) - Copy of Bill No.39150 dated 29.08.2009 for Rs.1902.65 issued by the opposite party
Ext.P1(b) - Copy of Bill for Rs.3142.25 issued by the opposite party
Ext.P2 - Copy of complainant's letter dated 16.04.2010 addressed to the 2nd opposite party
Ext.P3 - Copy of complainant's letter dated 29.10.2009 addressed to the 2nd opposite party
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 - Copy of Circular No.K.B.7553/08/M2 dated 16.08.2010 of Secretary, Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board, Thiruvananthapuram
