By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an Order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss sustained to the complainant and Rs.1,527/- towards the cost of dress material and Rs.1,300/- towards stitching charge due to the deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party.
2. The case of the complainant in brief as follows:- The complainant purchased Kakki uniform cloth of 6.50 meter with a rate of Rs.235/- per meter for a total sum of Rs.1,527/- from the opposite party on 23.04.2012. At the time of purchase, the salesman promised that the cloth is manufactured by S. Kumar company and the cloth is good worthy and no colour shade will happen to the cloth. On believing the words and promise, the complainant purchased the cloth. Thereafter, the cloth was stitched and the stitching charge is Rs.1,300/-. After two, three washings, the colour of the cloth began to shade and now the colour is fully lost to such an extent where the complainant cannot wear the dress. The complainant at first informed these aspect to the opposite party over telephone and thereafter in writing demanding either to replace the cloth or to pay back the cost of material and stitching charges of Rs.1,527/- and Rs.1,300/- respectively. But the opposite party did not respond to it. Aggrieved by this, the complainant preferred this complaint for the redressal of his grievance.
3. On receipt of the complaint, Notice was issued to the opposite party to appear before this Forum and to answer to the complaint. The opposite party appeared before this Forum and filed version admitting the purchase of cloth but denying all other material averments in the complaint and attributing fault with the complainant in his usage of cloth. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 are marked and MO 1 and MO 2 are also marked. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and examined as OPW1. Both sides were heard. On perusing the complaint, affidavit of both parties, evidence, documents and material objects, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1:- The case of the complainant is that he purchased the uniform cloth from the shop of opposite party on believing the assurance of the salesman of the shop to the effect that the uniform cloth are in good quality and there is less chance for colour fade. More over, the salesman informed the complainant that the material is produced by S. Kumars company, a repudiated firm. The colour fade happened to the cloth immediately after two, three washings. It was duly informed to the opposite party through telephone as well as by written Notice. But the opposite party did not respond. The complainant produced the stitiched cloth before this Forum. The Forum examined the MO 1 and MO 2 and the Forum convinced that there is colour fade to the cloths. The reason for the colour fading is not scientifically proved by the complainant even if the opposite party contented it. The complainant says that the reason for the colour fading is due to the low quality of material. The Forum examined the material MO 1 and MO 2 thoroughly and found that the inner parts of choler, pocket area there is no colour fading. If the colour fading is due to usage of high power washing powder or high heat ironing, there would be chances of colour fading over the entire parts of cloths, here that is not happened. So the contention of the opposite party to that aspect will not lie. Here the complainant duly send notice to the opposite party demanding either replacement or return of price. Even if the opposite party received the notice, the opposite party did not respond to it by either sending reply or to act upon. So the complainant is dragged to the Forum for his redressal. Hence there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Here the return of the stitched cloth to the opposite party is meaningless since it is not useful to the opposite party. So replacement of purchased cloths is not possible in this case. The complainant can use the stitched cloths for his own use in future. Therefore, the Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party in dealing this matter. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
5. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found in favor of complainant, the complaint is entitled to get the cost and compensation and opposite party is liable to pay compensation. Point No.2 is found in favor of complainant.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to return Rs.1,527/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Seven) only being the cost of material (Cloth), Rs.1,300/- (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred) only towards compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only towards the cost of the proceedings. Altogether, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4,327/- (Rupees Four Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Seven) only under the above stated heads to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply the Order within 30 days 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 30th day of January 2014.
Date of Filing:15.11.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainants:
PW1. Moidheenkutty. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Krishnan Kutty. Manager, Yes Bharath Silks and Sarees.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Bill. Dt:23.04.2012.
A2. Bill. Dt:11.05.2012.
A3. Acknowledgment Card.
MO 1. Dress Material
MO 2. Dress Material.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
