CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 67/11
Saturday the 23rd day of June, 2012
Petitioner : Arunima,
Puthenpurayil,
Erezha South,
Chettikulangara PO,
Peringala village,
Mavelikara, Alappuzha Dist.
(Adv.Maril M Das)
Vs.
Opposite party : Emmannual Silks,
Near Collectorate, Kottayam
Rep. by its Proprietor.
(Adv. Varughese CC)
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows:
The complainant purchased a churidar from the opposite party on 17/04/10. The price of the churidar was Rs. 2,655/-. At the time of sale, the opposite party promised that the item is a branded one and standard in quality. It was also agreed that the colour of the churidar will not be faded in wash. In the first wash itself, the colour of the churidar faded and on 07/06/10 complainant approached the opposite party and informed the matter. On 07/06/10, the opposite party assured the complainant to return the items if colour faded again after dry wash. On 15-06-10, the complainant again approached. The opposite party but that time the manager behaved indifferently and was reluctant to replace the item or refund the price. Hence the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service.
The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.
i) The complaint is bereft of any bonafides, not maintainable in law and facts and is only filed experimentally to make hardships to the opposite party.
ii) The complainant has to prove that she had purchased a churidar from this opposite party on 17/04/10 and the price of the churidar was Rs.2,665/-. The complainant has to prove that at the time of sale, this opposite party promised that the item is a branded one and standard in quality.
iii) The allegation that the colour of the churidar faded after the first wash and it is poor and substandard quality is incorrect. It is unbelievable that this opposite party assured the complainant to return the item if colour faded after the drywash.
iv) The items of the opposite party have high quality and standard and are branded ones. The complainant’s careless use might have caused the colour fading. Commonly churidar having prive Rs.2,655/- cannot be hand washed but it is to be drywashed.
The opposite party further contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs to them.
Points for considerations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and exhibits A1document on the side of petitioner.
Point No.1
Heard the counsels for both parties and perused the documents. The complainant averred that she purchased a branded churidar from the opposite party on 17-04-10 for Rs.2,655/- whereas the opposite party contented in the third paragraph of their version that it is the duty of the complainant to prove that the purchased churidar is a branded one and standard in quality. In the sixth paragraph of the very same version, the opposite party stated that the items of opposite party have high quality and standard and are branded ones. The aforementioned contentions are contrary to each other. The opposite party further contented that the complainant has to prove that she purchased a churidar from the opposite party on 17-04-10 for Rs.2,655/-. To prove the aforesaid contention the complainant produced the original bill dtd 17-04-10 vide bill no. 53-3982 for Rs.2655/- issued for the purchase of churidar having item code 20093961.
The complainant submitted that in the first wash itself the colour of the churidar faded and is found that the said churidar is very poor and of substandard quality. The said churidar was brought to the forum, we had perused and we were convinced about the alleged colour change and it was marked as MO1. According to the opposite party, the petitioner was bound to keep the directions to “wash and dry methods” printed on the branded product. But nothing is placed on record to prove that such a printed direction was given to the complainant. The opposite party next contented that in attentive use of the churidar was the real cause of the damage of the material. No evidence is placed on record to prove the alleged in attentive use.
The complainant again averred that on 07/06/10, the opposite party assured to return the items if colour of churidar faded again after dry wash. To evidence the said allegation, they produced Ext.A1 bill. On Ext.A1 bill, it is clearly written in red ink that “we assure you to return these items if colour fades after the dry wash”. From the assurance it is evident that the complainant approached the opposite party on 07/06/10 with complaint, ie after 1 ½ months of purchase of the said churidar. The said assurance was admitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party at the time of argument. The non redressal of the grievance of the complainant by the opposite party might have forced him to file this complaint. So the allegation of the opposite party that the complaint was filed 9 months 14 days after the purchase is disregarded. In our view the opposite party is deficient in their service and they are liable to compensate the mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point no.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is ordered as follows.
The opposite party is ordered to refund the purchase price Rs.2,655/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/-. On compliance of the order, the opposite party can take back the material object, churidar from the forum.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the awarded sum will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner.
Ext.A1-Original bill of Op
Ext.MO-Churidar
Documents of the opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
