By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
-2-
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a shirt made by the ‘sero’ company from the opposite party and paid Rs.810/- on 31-10-2018. The complainant is a regular user of the ‘sero’ company’s shirt and at the time of purchase the salesman told him that the material used for making that shirt is new and if any defects happen in future that will be replaced. But after washing, the shirt become look like an old one and could not iron. Thereafter the complainant informed the matter to the opposite party through phone. At that time the opposite party had given assurance that they will enquire the matter and inform the complainant within two days. But after two days the opposite party had not given any reply or response. So the complainant went directly to the opposite party’s shop and enquired about that. At that time a person named Poulose introduced himself as the Manager misbehaved and threatened the complainant and they were not ready to replace the defective shirt but humiliated the complainant at the presence of other people. The complainant suffered mental agony and pain and hence seeking the following reliefs.
(a). Replacement of shirt.
(b). Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and defamation.
-3-
(c). If not ready to replace the shirt return back the bill amount.
(d), Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
3. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party admitted that on 31-10-2020 the complainant brought the shirt as alleged in the complaint and denied all other allegations. The opposite party contended that the complainant himself selected that shirt and after thorough check he decided to buy the same. After two weeks of the purchase the complainant approached the opposite party and asked to replace the shirt. The opposite party checked the same and realized that the complainant used the shirt and hence the opposite party refused the complainant’s need. The opposite party is a reputed establishment and selling branded good quality products only. The complainant filed this case only to get unlawful gain and extract money from the opposite party. It is true that the shirt sold to the opposite party is made by the company named ‘sero’ and hence the company is a necessary party and the company is not made a party in this complaint. Hence the opposite party is seeking dismissal of the complaint.
-4-
4. On perusal of the complaint, version and available documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
- Whether any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice happened from the side of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the shirt or refund the price?
- Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?.
- Relief and cost.
5. For the sake of brevity and convenience the points Nos.1 to 3 are considered together.
6. Point No. 1 to 3 :- The Complainant filed chief affidavit and he was examined as PW-1 and Ext. A-1 and MO-1 were marked. From the side of opposite party the manager of the firm examined as OPW-1 and no documents were marked.
7. On going through the available records and submissions it is evident that there is no dispute as to the fact that the complainant is a customer of the opposite party and the complainant purchased the shirt from opposite party. And there is no dispute regarding the transaction but the only dispute is regarding the
-5-
quality of the material used to manufacture the shirt. The Forum thoroughly verified and examined the disputed shirt, MO-1. But the Forum could not find any defect on the shirt as alleged by the complainant.
8. It is the primary duty of the complainant to prove the allegations that are alleged in the complaint. Here the complainant had not taken any steps to scientifically check the quality of the disputed product. If any manufacturing defect the product should have to be replaced or return the product. In this case the complainant did not made the manufacturing company as a party. If the complainant was not aware of the address of the company he could very well take steps to bring the name and address through opposite party. On perusing the complaint the forum could not find any specific allegation regarding the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the opposite party. Lack of specific pleading in the complaint the Forum could not assume things and conclude point against the opposite party.
9. The complainant failed to prove his allegation regarding misbehavior of the opposite party. If a manufacturing defect is alleged the manufacturing company is to be made a necessary party to the case. Here the complainant had
-6-
not taken any steps to implead the company as a party. So the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The opposite party is not at all liable for the manufacturing defect.
10. On going through the available records the Forum come to a conclusion that the complaint deserves no merits. Hence the points are found against the complainant.
11. Point No.4:- Since the other points are found against the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and costs from opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of March 2020.
Date of Filing: 23.11.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
-7-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Shaji. M. U. IT Teacher.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Joseph. P. J. Manager, Yes Bharath.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Bill.
MO-1. Shirt.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.
