BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 26th day of April, 2007
C.C. No.183/2006
S. Natraj, S/o. S.Ramachandraiah, Aged 49 years,
Flat No.201, Vamsi Krishna Appartment, N.R.Peta, Kurnool.
…Complainant
-Vs-
The Proprietor, M/s. Colors, G.Raju Krishna, S/o. G.C. Srinivasulu,
Shop No.23, Abdullah Khan Estate, Kurnool - 518 001.
…Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.A. Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate Kurnool for complainant, and Sri.A.Chandramouliswara Reddy Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Smt.C. Preethi, Member
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act., 1986 seeking a direction on opposite party to return the cost of the dress i.e., Rs.1,000/- with 18% interest from 28-8-06 till realization, to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant on 28-8-06 purchased a pant and shirt worth of Rs.1,000/- from opposite party shop, as the said dress was found slightly damaged the complainant returned the said dress to the opposite party and opposite party requested the complainant to select any other material from the shop. But the complainant could not select any material as the said material was not to his satisfaction and again on 07-9-06 the opposite party requested the complainant to select new clothes as new stocks arrived but the complainant could not satisfy with the new stock available and the opposite party endorsed on the back of the bill that “Due of Rs.1,000/-”. As the complainant could not satisfy with available stock he requested the opposite party to repay the due amount but the opposite party did not returned the amount. Hence, the complainant was constraint to approach the forum as there is deficiency of service on part of opposite party in not returning the said amount.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on following documents Viz: (1) Cash bill dt:28-8-06 and (2) Endorsement and reverse of Ex.A1, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A2 for its appreciation for this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite party and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party.
4. In pursuance of the notice of this forum the opposite party appeared through their counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite party submits that the complaint of the complainant is not just and maintainable either in law or on facts and denies that the complainant purchased shirt and pant by paying Rs.1,000/- But it was his wife who purchased the shirt and pant. The opposite party in their written version admits that the complainant returned the said purchased dress in exchange of said dress the complainant could not select another dress and hence the opposite party endorsed on back side of the bill stating that due to Rs.1,000/-. The opposite party now also has no objection for the complainant to exchange any other dress worth Rs.1,000/- from his shop. And lastly submits that the complainant is not entitled to any damages and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs as there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party.
6. In support of his case the opposite party filed his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his written version and did not file any documents. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to:?
8. It is a simple case of the complainant that he purchased a shirt and pant worth Rs.1,000/- from opposite party shop as the dress was found slightly damaged the complainant returned the said dress to opposite party and the opposite party requested the complainant to exchange damaged dress with another dress or material from his shop and he will not return the cost of the shirt and pant. The complainant thereafter, went to the opposite party shop but could not select a suitablely dress and requested the opposite party to return the cost of the damaged dress and the opposite party denied to the request of the complainant, Section 14 (B) of C.P. Act., 1986 says that the District Forum if satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint may direct the opposite party to remove the defects or replace the goods or to return to the complainant the price or to pay any amount as compensation. In this case as there are defects in the goods the opposite party rightly ask the complainant to exchange the damaged shirt and pant with another pant and shirt or any other material from his shop. Hence, there appears any deficiency of service on part of opposite party in asking the complainant to take another dress in place of returned damaged shirt and pant section 14 (B) also says to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect. Hence, the act of opposite party in offering to exchange the damaged dress with new dress cannot be held deficiency of service. Hence, there appears any deficiency service on part of opposite party.
9. To sum up, the above discussion there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and the complainant is directed to approach opposite party and to exchange the damaged dress with new dress or with any other material same opposite party shop.
10. In the result, the complainant is the directed to approach the opposite party shop to exchange the damaged shirt and pant with new shirt and pant or with any other material worth Rs.1,000/- and on that the opposite party shall immediately comply the same. In the circumstances no costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us Open bench on this the 26th day of April, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant:Nil For the Opposite Party: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Cash bill, Dt:28-8-06 for Rs.1,000/-.
Ex.A2 Endorsement on reverse of Ex.A1.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party: Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. A. Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. A. Chandramouliswara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. S. Natraj, S/o. S.Ramachandraiah, Aged 49 years, Flat No.201,
Vamsi Krishna Appartment, N.R.Peta, Kurnool.
4. The Proprietor, M/s. Colors, G.Raju Krishna, S/o. G.C. Srinivasulu,
Shop No.23, Abdullah Khan Estate, Kurnool – 518 001.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
