By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a saree on 8.4.2008 for a sum of Rs.1950 as per bill No.1502 for the occasion of Vishu.  No defect was visible while checking the piece and an extensive search was not made from the shop since the opposite party has promised that the same is of good quality.  On the day of ‘Vishu’ when his wife was unfolding the same, she was shocked to see so many cuts on the saree making it useless to wear.  The complainant contacted the opposite party but their response was not satisfactory.  Hence the complainant claiming the cost of the saree and a sum of Rs.2000/- by way of compensation.

            Opposite party entered in appearance and filed version stating that opposite party denied all the averments made by the complainant.  Moreover, complainant’s wife purchased the said saree after thorough verification and scrutiny.  Under these circumstances complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

            Complainant was examined as PW1and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked.  Saree was marked as MO1 and defects noted after judicial notice and the MO1 given back to the complainant.

            While perusal of the MO1, some defects were noted and Forum cannot find that the sold MO1 was defect free.  Opposite party should make sure that the proposed goods for sale to be defect free.  It is the duty of the opposite party that every goods should be perfect.  Complainant proved the case by producing the MO1 and Ext. A1 to A3.  On the other hand opposite party has not produced any contra evidence to substantiate their case.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to get replace the MO1 worth Rs.1950/- and also a compensation of Rs.2000/-.

            In the result petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to replace the MO1 worth Rs.1950/- and also to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- along with a cost of Rs.250/- to the complainant.

            Pronounced in open Court this the 30^th day of January 2009.

                                    Sd/-President                                  Sd/-Member

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1        Retail Invoice No.1502 dated 8.4.2008 for Rs.1950/-.

A2        Copy of Lawyer notice dated 17.4.2008.

A3        Reply to Ext. A2 lawyer notice.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1            Sudhakaran. M.C., S/o. P.K. Kannan, Souparnika – Complainant.

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None.

-/True copy/-

Sd/-President

(Forwarded/By Order)

Senior Superintendent.