DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 10th day of May, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing 15/12/2022
CC/252/2022
Riyasudeen.V.J
S/o Abdul Jaleel, Aysha Manzil
Karingarappully.P.O
Palakkad - 678 551 - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
The Manager
IHA Designs, Iyyer Junction
Opp. Clums Car wash, Ereezha
Sea View ward, Alappuzha - 688 001 - Opposite party
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.
1. Pleadings of the Complainant.
The complainant purchased wedding dress worth Rs. 26,550/- from the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that the blouse piece attached to one of the 4 saries purchased was plain instead of brocade. Similarly a portion of the sari was also found plain. This happened because the opposite party didn't allow the family members of the complainant to unfurl and examine the same or to have a trial before purchase. This is a deficiency on the part of opposite party as they had promised that all the sarees were of similar design but may be of different quality according to the price. Though contacted, the opposite party was very indifferent in approach. Hence this complaint seeking various reliefs amounting to Rs.2,18,100/-.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite party, but got returned with endorsement "refused”. Hence their name was called in the open Court and set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 as documentary evidence. It is the copy of the bill relating to the purchase in question.
4. The evidence adduced by way of Ext. A1 is only the proof of purchase made by the complainant from the opposite party, which is not in any way enough and sufficient proof to support any of the pleadings of the complainant. Hence, it has to be concluded that the complainant has failed in proving prima facie case against the opposite party.
5. However, a detailed examination of the said exhibit revealed that the bill /sale invoice issued by the opposite party contain the Clause "Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged, kindly co-operate". This subscript is in violation of GO(P)No. 60/07/FCS & CA dated 03/11/2017, the validity of which was upheld by the Honourable State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kerala in the Duty Free Shop, CIAL v/s Manohar & others in FA 924/2012. This is a clear case of undesirable practice on the part of the opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs.
- The opposite is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice and
- Rs. 5,000/- as cost.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 500/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 10th day May, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1: Purchase bill for Rs. 13,650/- dated 27/11/2022.
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil.
Witness examined: Nil.
Cost: Rs. 5,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
