By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to refund the value of the saree along with cost and compensation for the deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a saree from the opposite party's shop after paying the value of the saree that is Rs.809/- on 12.04.2012. While selecting the saree opposite party's staff convinced the complainant that the Malai Silk Saree is good quality and will last long. By believing the words of the staff of the opposite party the complainant ordered the saree and bought the saree. After stitching the blouse, the blouse and saree used very next day and after use it was noticed that the colour of the blouse and saree were seen spread to the body. When the dress were washed more colour is spread to the water.
3. So the complainant approached the opposite party with the above dress on 16.04.2012 and convinced the above saree's complaint to the opposite party. At that time opposite party's staff told that on 30.04.2012 the new stock will come at that time the saree can be replaced. When the complainant approached the opposite party on 30.04.2012 the opposite party again told that on 02.05.2012 it will be replaced. Again on 02.05.2012 the complainant approached the opposite party, the opposite party told that if it is a cloth the colour will loose and spread, so it cannot be replaced and thrown the packet of the saree to the face of the complainant and shouted and thrown the complainant out of shop in front of so many customers and staff.
4. It felt mental agony and much hardship to the complainant and she further says that after convincing the complainant that the saree is good quality and long lasting and given a low quality cloth is a clear deficiency of service from the part of opposite party and prayed before the Forum to refund the value of the material and to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- as cost and compensation for the mental agony and for this petition.
5. The complaint filed on 24.07.2012 and Notice were served to opposite party and opposite party filed version on 04.09.2012 and stated that on 12.04.2012 the complainant purchased one good quality malai silk saree worth Rs.809/- which is in good quality and having no complaint and will not fade its colour or spread its colour while washing or using and further says that the complainant returned one kitcha silk velvet design dry clean saree. When the saree is given back to the shop the opposite party was not in shop, so the staff kept the saree in shop of opposite party and told the complainant that they will inform the matter to the owner. When the opposite party saw the saree he understood that the saree bought in his shop was a dry clean
saree. Thereafter, one day complainant's husband came to the shop and shouted with the opposite party and commanded to replace the saree. But the opposite party told him that it is a dry clean saree it could not be replaced and requested him to bring the bill and if the bill is produced we will discuss the matter with the company and will inform the result. But the husband of the complainant went of the shop with anger.
6. On considering the complaint, version, affidavit and document produced by both parties the following points are to be considered:
1. Is there any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
7. Point No.1:- The complainant filed chief affidavit in addition to the complaint and she stated as stated in the complaint and Ext.A1 and MO 1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the bill produced by the complainant, which shows that the complainant purchased one MALAI SILK Saree on 12.04.2012 for Rs.809/- from opposite party. MO 1 is the saree produced by the complainant and stating that this is the saree given by the opposite party after giving the Bill for MALAI SILK. The opposite party also admitted that MO 1 is not MALAI SILK. Then it is further evidenced that MO1 is not MALAI SILK it itself show that the disputed saree is a low quality material that is why the colour of the saree is spreaded. Then the question arises whether the MO1 given by the opposite party which is not MALAI SILK after collecting the rate of MALAI SILK and issued the Bill.
8. The opposite party have failed to prove with Stock Register whether there is any excess MALAI SILK saree than there in the Stock Register. If the opposite party could have produced the Stock Register of MALAI SILK as on 12.04.2012 we could understood that there is no excess MALAI SILK Sarees and on the other side, we cannot hold that the complainant return back one another saree instead of MALAI SILK Saree. Finally we hold in the opinion that there may be a mistake occurred from the side of opposite party's staff who packed the saree. Hence we are in the opinion that there is deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party. On the above findings non replace of the low quality saree with MALAI SILK Saree is the deficiency of service from the side of opposite party. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- On the above findings the complainant is entitled to get refund of the cost of the saree that is Rs.809/- from opposite party and also entitled to get Rs.200/- as cost and compensation and the opposite party is entitled to receive the MO1 from the Forum. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to refund Rs.809/- (Rupees Eight Hundred and Nine) only to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) only as cost and compensation to the complainant and the opposite party is at liberty to receive the MO1 from the Forum. This Order must be complied by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of September 2013.
Date of Filing:-24.07.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Sindhu. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Darshan Prasad. Opposite Party.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Bill. Dt:12.04.2012.
MO 1. Saree.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
B1. Copy of Bill. Dt:12.03.2012.
B2. Copy of Bill. Dt:12.03.2012.
B3. Photograph.
B4. Bill. Dt:12.04.2012.
B5. Details of Malai Silk Saree
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
