BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 11th January 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.136/2014
(Admitted on 23.04.2014)
Mr. Babu Shetty,
S/o Late Thukra Shetty,
Aged about 55 years,
R/a Shwetha Nilaya,
Desody, Kuthar, Munnur,
Mangalore Taluk.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri KBA)
VERSUS
The Proprietor,
M/s Coronet Dry Cleaners,
Near Catholic Centre,
Hampankatta, Mangalore 575 001.
…....OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite party: Sri MPN)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against Opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant claims in May 2013 he handed over two silk dhothi for dry washing to opposite party which he had purchased on 10.12.2012 and he is a regular customer. The opposite party asked complainant to come on 22.05.2013 for collection. But when complainant approached opposite party on 22.5.2013 he was handed over a dhothi which was not of him as it was completely damaged and opposite party removed the tag No.19596 KBS and handed over the same to complainant and asked to come on 24.5.2013. On that day on approaching opposite party he was delivered with two damaged dhothis to complainant and forced to take away the dhothis and complainant refused to accept the said dhothis. On 24.5.2013 complainant demanded opposite party to give acknowledgement for non return of above two dhothis. Opposite party as such gave slip for one dhothi and asked to return the tag No.19596 dated 22.05.2013 for another dhothi and asked to come on next week. Inspite of several approach and demands the opposite party failed to return them to complainant even after service of legal notice. Hence seeks the relief as mentioned in the complaint.
II. Opposite party filed written version denying delivery of two dhothi of complainant to opposite party for dry wash and return of only one dhothi on 22.5.2013 of alleged damaged dhothi and of delivery of tag No.19596 KBS asking him to come on 22.5.2013. It is the case of opposite party on 11.5.2013 complainant approached for dry washing one dhothi with cream with green border and cream colour shirt in damaged conditions. The bill issued to complainant evidence the same. At the time of delivery of garment opposite party specifically informed to complainant that it is not possible to dry wash the same as it would cause further damage. During dry washing and if possible only wash the same. As complainant stated he would take the risk opposite party accepted to try the dry wash and according to opposite party issued the bill bearing No.13030 asking to come on 17.5.2013 to collect the given materials. However when the cloth were sent to Kulsheker factory for wash on inspection they were sent back without wash due to the poor condition of the clothes. When complainant came to collect he collected only the shirt and requested to resend the dhothi. As such the bill No.881 dated 24.5.2013 was given to complainant but once again it was rejected and complainant was asked to collect the dhothi which was refused by complainant. The tag No.19596 KBS does not belong to the cloth given on 11.5.2013 but it was issued in May 2012 of delivery of one shirt and dhothi for dry wash and it was handed over to complainant on 2.6.2012. Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. Babu Shetty filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex.C1 to C5 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Arun D’ Souza (RW1) Proprietor, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him got marked Ex.R1 to R7 as detailed in the annexure here below.
In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No.(iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
I V. POINTS No. (i): The complainant had given certain clothes for dry cleaning to opposite party and that there by complainant is the consumer and the opposite party is the service provider is admitted. The complainant contended that the cloth given for dry washing was not refused by opposite party and one returned was damaged and the opposite party took a stand that the clothes were already damaged namely the shirt and the dhothi were already damaged and as such they were not dry washed hence both parties are on issue as to the service provided by opposite party to consumer the complainant as contemplated under section 2 of C P Act. Hence point No.1 answered in the affirmative.
POINTS No.(ii): Ex.C1 is the receipt dated 10.12.2012 under which the complainant claims he purchased two silk dhothis. Ex.C2 is the tag with No. 19596 KBS dated 22/5 and the identification marked as ‘KBS’. This KBS pertains to K Babu Shetty the complainant is not in dispute. Ex.C3 according to opposite party is the slip issued by opposite party to complainant for non delivery of one dhothi as it was damaged Ex.C3 is date 24.5.2013 with order number as with its number as 881 and order No. 0/13030 KBS.
2. On the other hand opposite party produced Ex.R2 the indentation issued by the dry cleaning factory dated 14.5.2013 it mentions at sl. no. 3 the return without washing with the mention ‘13030-KBS-Dhothi- weak. Ex.R3 is the Xerox copy of the carbon copy of the Ex.C3 and it as the order no.13030 KBS.
3. Ex.R4 is the copy of daily register maintained by opposite party Coronet Dry Cleaners Hampankatta, Mangalore. On 26.6.2012 at sl. no. 19596 with initial of ‘KBS’ with items shirt one and dhothi one and total item 2 and delivery date mentioned as 26.6.2012 is produced by opposite party. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for opposite party the tag Ex.C2 corresponded to the entry at Ex.R4 the daily register wherein the item one shirt and one dhothi were given by this complainant for dry cleaning with delivery date has 26.6.2012.
4. If really there was a tag given to complainant as stated by complainant for non delivery of dhothi the tag ought to have contained the sl.no. 13030 KBS as mentioned at Ex.C3 and not as mentioned at Ex.C2 of 19596 KBS. Hence the contention of complainant that the alleged two dhothi given by complainant to dry washing to opposite party is unbelievable. It would appear the complainant making use of a tag which he had with him given by opposite party in June 2012 in respect of an earlier material given for dry cleaning was misused by complainant to make unjust claim against opposite party.
5. In fact opposite party had succeeded in showing that the clothe given by complainant were not subject to dry washing as it was already damaged as seeing from the endorsement given by the factory is referred earlier. As such the complainant in the circumstance completely failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed with cost. Advocate fee fixed at Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only).
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 11th January 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
MEMBER
(SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G)
D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Babu Shetty
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 10.02.2013: The bill for purchase of two dhoties
Ex.C2: 22.05.2013: The Tag No.19596 KBS
Ex.C3: 24.05.2013: The pending slip
Ex.C4: 26.08.2013: The office copy of the Lawyer’s Notice
Ex.C5: : The postal acknowledgement of the above
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Mr. Arun D Souza, Proprietor
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: 11.05.2013: Copy of the bill No.13030 for dhoti and Shirt
Ex.R2: 14.05.2013: Copy of the letter by Factory
Ex.R3: 24.05.2013: Pending Slip
Ex.R4: 16.05.2012: Copy of the daily register
Ex.R5: 10.09.2013: Reply notice
Ex.R6: : Acknowledgment
Ex.R7: : Cream/White colour Dhothi
Dated: 11.01.2017 PRESIDENT
