BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 295/2003 Filed on 01.08.2003<br /> Dated : 30.07.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Saji.S.S, Saumya Nivas, Chenkottukonam, Chempazhanthy P.O. <br /> (By adv. S.V. Premakumaran Nair)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.Managing Director, Clean Plus, Ananthapuri Apparel Services Pvt. Ltd., KINFRA International Apparel Park, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.Branch Manager, Ulloor Enterprises (Franchise), Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. S. Hareendranath)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 31.08.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30.06.2008, the Forum on 30.07.2008 delivered the following: <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> <br /> Facts of the case as per the complainant are as follows: Complainant Saji gave a sari of his sister to be dry cleaned to the opposite parties. He has produced the bill on that as a proof with Bill No. 5989. The sari was returned by the opposite party on 25.05.2003, but when examined it was found that fading of colour has occurred to the sari and there was stains on it. Following this, on 27.05.2003 the complainant once again gave it to opposite party to be rewashed. Then, it was said that it will be returned on 04.06.2003, but since rewash was not successful, it was done again twice and finally on 24.06.2003 it was returned. There was still colour fading and stains associated with the sari. Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party for compensation and he was directed to contact with the company directly. On the same day he met the managing director of the company, and the Managing Director admitted that fault was on their part itself and as a compensation he promised to give back either a new sari of same quality and cost or to give the cost of the sari. After two days, the complainant was asked to collect a new sari through the franchise. Two times he approached the franchise, but in vain. He approached the company once again. After that on 08.07.2003 through the franchise, they tried to give him a sari which is of low quality and lower cost than his original sari. The complainant refused to accept that and approached this forum after taking back his original sari which was still in franchise. <br /> <br /> As per the version filed by the opposite parties, facts are as follows: The opposite parties agree to the fact that the sari was given by the complainant to be dry cleaned at their franchise. But they denied the rewashes as said by the complainant and insists that they have returned the sari on 25.05.2003 and after that no rewash was done by them. They also said that, the sari was not a new one and it had undergone many dry washes earlier. It is the duty of the consumer to decide their dress materials unless they are returned at the counter itself. They also pointed out that in dry cleaning process, no water is used and hence the allegation that colour fading occurred due to dry cleaning is baseless. The opposite parties never promised the complainant to give a new sari, since the damage to sari occurred not due to their fault. <br /> <br /> Points to be considered:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In this case the opposite party and complainant filed proof affidavit. Complainant produced a document marked as Ext. P1 which is the cash receipt given by the opposite party in which it is written that the sari should be rewashed. The sari was produced before the Forum by the complainant which is marked as MO1. On a careful observation, it was found that the sari was faded. A settlement talk was done between the complainant and opposite party during the trial on which the opposite party said as willing to pay an amount of Rs. 2000/-. The evidence before the Forum is sufficient to prove the case and it can be inferred that there is deficiency in service from opposite parties. The fading of sari has occurred due to the fault of opposite party itself. Hence the complaint is allowed. As per the complainant the price of the sari is Rs. 3000/-. Since the sari was not new at the time of first dry cleaning, the opposite parties' stand of paying back Rs. 2000/- is found sufficient. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 2000/- to the complainant and Rs. 1000/- as cost of the complaint. Time for compliance is two months and after that an interest of 9% per annum should also be paid. On payment of the ordered amount the opposite parties shall take back the MO1 sari from the Forum.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th July 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 295/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS: <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> <br /> P1 - Cash receipt No. 6013 dated 27/05 given by the opposite <br /> party to the complainant. <br /> <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS:<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS:<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br />