BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 529/2013 filed on 17/12/2013
Dated: 31..10..2014
Complainant:
Jeena Mohanan, D/o Jayasree, Anugraha, Kavil Lane, Bapuji Nagar, B.N.256, Pongummoodu, Medical college P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. M.S. Manish)
Opposite party:
The Managing Director, Looks, (The Ladies Fashion Wears) Shop No.G 29, Sanhalyam Complex, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram.
This C.C having been heard on 09..10..2014, the Forum on 31..10..2014 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:
Complainant is a teacher by profession and on 22/10/2013, she went for shopping at Saphalyam Complex in the evening hours at about 6.30 P.M and when she reached in front of the shop of the opposite party, he and his staffs invited the complainant to their shop stating that their shop had a good collection of Kurthas. The complainant was made to believe by the opposite party and his men that one Kurtha stitched in linen material is a special piece of superior quality and that they have only 2 more pieces left out to be sold and thus the opposite party persuaded the complainant to buy one Kurtha out of the above said 2 pieces. It is submitted that believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant purchased one Kurtha out of the above said 2 pieces for Rs.950/- vide bill No.7357 dated 22/10/2013 as serial No.1 in the bill. In this connection it is submitted that the complainant brought the Kurtha to home, she could notice that the said Kurtha was a transparent one and thus she was constrained to purchased a lining material for stitching the same the complainant expended Rs. 400/-. It is humbly submitted that after wearing the Kurtha on 05/11/2013, the Kurtha was given for dry wash and on receiving the same the complainant was shocked to see that the black flowers, with decorative design on the fabric with needle and thread of black colours shrinked and the black colour of the flower spread all over Kurtha, whereby rendering the Kurtha an useless one. In this connection it is humbly submitted that the opposite parties have sold the Kurtha stating that the same is of superior quality and the linen material would last long. But in fact the Kurtha was of absolute inferior quality and the material used for decorative design on the fabric, spread all over the Kurtha on dry wash. Thus the opposite party is responsible for unfair trade practice, as he did not made at least an effort to correct the mistake when the complainant informed him about the same in person. The attitude of the opposite party was so indifferent and he alleged mistake on the part of the complainant for misusing the same, and shouted that he do not have any liability to replace the same and that he is not responsible for what transpired. Thus, it is submitted that the act of the opposite party amounts to absolute deficiency in service and the same resulted in mental pain and agony. The above stated facts and sate of affairs do point out that the opposite party has committed absolute unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant thus on 21/11/2013 issued a legal notice highlighting her grievances and to redress the same. Though the opposite party accepted the same, he failed to pay or heed to the legitimate demands made by the complainant. The opposite party did not even care to respond to the allegation levelled against, in the said notice. The complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 950/- towards the price of Kurtha together with the Rs.400/- expended for borrowing and stitching of lining to the Kurtha. Rs.5,000/- towards the mental pain, agony and suffering, put to the complainant in connection with the defective services and Rs.1,000/- towards the legal fee of issuance of notice and cost of this proceedings.
2. Notice was send to the opposite party though they accepted notice, they failed to appear and contest the case and so they were set exparte. Complainant filed affidavit along with 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4.
3. Points raised for consideration:
(i) Whether the allegation of unfair trade practice is established?
(ii) Reliefs and costs if any?
4. Points (i) & (ii): Complainant filed this complaint for getting refund of the purchase price given for buying a Kurtha from the opposite party shop. As per the complaint, she purchased the same believing the words of the opposite party that it is of superior quality. She purchased the same for wearing on her birthday. When verified at home, she found that it was a transparent one and so was forced to buy a lining for the same for which Rs. 400/- was additionally spent. After wearing the same it was given for dry wash. After dry wash the black colour of the decorative portion spread all over the Kurtha, whereby making it a useless one. So she claims refund of the purchase price along with the cost of lining cloth. Perused the documents MO was produced before this Forum. Black colour is seen spread once it and appear to be not fit for wearing. Ext. P1 is the purchase bill of the Kurtha showing the price as Rs. 950/-. So she is eligible for getting the same as refund. She claims that Rs.400/- has been spend by her for attaching a lining to the Kurtha. But no material evidence is before us to show the price of the same. Moreover, the Kurtha is seen selected by the complainant herself. She should be more vigilant selection. Transparency can be felt even at the shop itself. So there is some contributory negligence on the part of the complainant herself. So we are of the view that she is not eligible for a refund of the amount she spent towards the purchase of the living cloth.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay the complainant Rs. 950/- within a month of receipt of this order failing which this amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization. Parties are directed to bear the cost.
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.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of October, 2014.
Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/- G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/- R. SATHI : MEMBER
ad
C.C.No: 529/2013
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : N I L
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Bill No.7357 dated 22/10/2013 issued by the opposite party
P2 : Copy of Advocate notice dated 21/11/2013
P3 : Postal receipt dated 21/11/2013
P4 : Acknowledgement card dated 22/11/2013
III. Opposite party’s witness : N I L
IV. Opposite party’s documents : N I L
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Ad.
