BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 90/2009 Filed on 28.04.2009

Dated : 31.03.2011

Complainants :

1. Consumer Vigilance Centre, Sreekovil, Kodunganoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.

    

2. Dr. P.S. Radhamony, T.C 9/2040(2), Mayukham, Sasthamangalam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.

Opposite party:

The Proprietor, Snow 'N' White Dry cleaners & Saree Polishers, Narayana Tower, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

(By adv. Jayamohan. M)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 09.03.2011, the Forum on 31.03.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The 1^st complainant in this case is Consumer Vigilance Centre and 2^nd complainant is Dr. P.S. Radhamony. The 2^nd complainant entrusted her husband's shirt to the opposite party for dry cleaning the same on 29.01.2009 and she had paid its charge. But after dry cleaning the colour of the shirt became fade and for that reason the complainant refused to take the shirt and demanded to return the receipt. Then the opposite party noted in the receipt that there are stains in the shirt. The complainant states that there was no stains in the shirt at the time of entrusting the shirt to the opposite party. The opposite party assured the complainant that the shirt will be returned in good condition in further cleaning. But the shirt became worst and totally damaged after second dry cleaning. The complainant alleges that due to the improper method of dry cleaning and negligence of the opposite party the shirt became useless. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant, for that effect she filed this complaint before this Forum.

Opposite party filed version denying the allegations. According to the opposite party they returned the shirt after dry cleaning in its true colour. The allegation that the opposite party asked the bill back from the petitioner and made other entry in the bill is absolutely false. The shirt had stains in it at the time of entrusting it with the opposite party, but that fact was written in the bill at the time of accepting the material for dry cleaning and it was not written afterwards. The colour change in the shirt is not done due to the negligence of the opposite party. It happened at the house of the 2^nd complainant.

The 2^nd complainant in this case has given evidence as PW1 and she has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. The shirt in dispute has been produced as MO1.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant alleges that due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party, the shirt became damaged. To prove her contentions she had sworn statement as PW1. The opposite party did not cross examine her. Hence the deposition of the complainant stands unshaken. She has produced 3 documents as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 29.01.2009. As per this bill, the complainant had paid Rs. 15/- as charge for the dry cleaning of the shirt. Ext. P2 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to opposite party dated 05.03.2009 demanding settlement. Ext. P3 is the reply notice issued by the opposite party. In that reply the opposite party argued that opposite party is ready to pay compensation as per the instructions mentioned in the bill. But the opposite party did not settle the matter till date. We have carefully watched the MO1 and find that the colour of the shirt changed as a cream colour. We can see the light green colour only in the stitching of the button hole. In the complaint, complainant stated that the shirt is Allen Solly Shirt and its price was Rs. 1,300/-. We find that the shirt is Allen Solly one. From the evidence and documents produced by the complainant, we find that the complainant has succeeded to prove her case and there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. Due to the negligence of the opposite party the shirt was damaged. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant as compensation and costs. Opposite party has the right to take the shirt (MO1) from this Forum after compliance of the order. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which 9% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount from the date of order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of March 2011.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 90/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Dr. Radhamony

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party to the

complainant dated 29.01.2009

P2 - Copy of notice issued by the complainant to opposite party

dated 05.03.2009 demanding settlement.

P3 - Copy of reply notice issued by the opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBIT

MO1 - Shirt.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT