BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 351/2002 Filed on 12.08.2002

Dated : 15.05.2009

Complainant:

Francis Pradeep Lal, May Cottage, Technical Composite Centre, Watts Road, Thiruvananthapuram-8.

(By adv. K.K. Rajeev Punnapuram)

Opposite party:

The Proprietor, Freelance Communications, 101, Attukal Shopping Complex, Thiruvananthapuram – 23.

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 24.11.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been heard on 15.04.2009, the Forum on 15.05.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The complainant is a businessman by profession and the opposite party is the proprietor of Freelance Communications which is engaged in printing visiting cards and such related works. Since visiting card is a necessity for those carrying on business for their livelihood, the complainant approached the opposite party on 19.07.2002 and gave an order for printing 400 visiting cards and paid a total sum of Rs. 575/- as demanded by the opposite party for which 2 bills bearing Nos. 1850 and 1851 were issued to the complainant by the opposite party. Since the complainant wanted a good quality visiting card, he had specifically told the opposite party that he wanted it to be printed in Synthetic card which is costlier, out of which 200 plain synthetic cards were provided to the opposite party by the complainant. After few days the complainant collected the visiting cards from the opposite party and he started giving the cards to his customers from the very next day itself. But, one of his customers to whom he had given the card came to him after 2 days and told the complainant that the details printed in the visiting card given to him are disappearing and hence he returned the card to the complainant. The printing of the cards would be easily removed with finger, water or other objects. The above said defects itself prove that visiting cards printed by the opposite party are of poor quality ink and are unfit for its purpose. Hence the complainant approached the opposite party and informed him about the defects and showed him the card. But the opposite party behaved in a negative manner and he was not willing to print the visiting card afresh or refund the amount. The complainant had to suffer severe mental agony and untold hardships due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

The opposite party in this case the Proprietor, Freelance Communications filed the version contending that the complainant has given order for only 200 cards and not for 400 as stated in the complaint. He printed the cards and had given it to the complainant on the specified date itself. And on the very same day the complainant had ordered for another 200 cards and the opposite party gave that card on the next day itself and the complainant paid Rs. 575/-. The opposite party alleged that the cards produced before this Forum were damaged by the complainant himself. The opposite party also submitted that the complainant has not made any complaint before the opposite party before filing this complaint before this Forum. The opposite party also stated that the complainant has not produced the whole cards before this Forum because he has been using the cards. Hence he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant in this case filed proof affidavit and he has produced 3 documents. The opposite party also filed affidavit and produced 13 documents.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

2. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the copy of bill issued by the opposite party on 19.07.2002 for Rs. 300/- and Ext. P2 is the copy of bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 19.07.2002 for Rs. 275/-. These two bills are the evidence of the transaction between the complainant and the opposite party. Ext. P3 is copy of visiting cards. From Ext. P3 it is clear that the printed letter are peeling off.

To controvert the case of the complainant the opposite party produced 13 documents and that documents were marked as Exts. D1 to D13. Ext. D1 is the copy of certain customers list of the opposite party. Ext. D2 is the copy of certificate issued by the State Resource Centre Kerala regarding the quality of the work of the opposite party. Ext. D3 series are the samples of cards and its prices. Ext. D4 and D5 are the copies of samples of visiting cards printed by the opposite party. Ext. D7 is the copy of page No. 59 of the register regarding the work of the opposite party. In this extract on 16.07.2002 and on 18.07.2002 the complainant's transactions were noted. Exts. D8 to D13 are the advertisements and records showing the nature of works and ability of the opposite party.

From the above, the opposite party may be an efficient and experienced person in this field. But the Exts. produced by the complainant show that the work done for the complainant is not serving the purpose for the same. The details with regard to the address and such other details are not clear. This would be the reason which prompted the complainant to file this complaint. Sec. 2 (g) of Consumer Protection Act says “deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. Accordingly the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed and we find that the ends of justice will be met if the complainant is refunded the amount of Rs. 575/- along with Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. On receipt of the amounts, the complainant shall return the visiting cards to the opposite party. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter 12% interest will be added to the above said amounts till the date of realisation.

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 day of 15^th May 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 351/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of bill dated 19.07.2002 for Rs. 300/- issued by

opposite party.

P2 - Photocopy of bill dated 19.07.2002 for Rs. 275/- issued by

opposite party.

P3 - Photocopy of address and emblem of complainant's

institution.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of list of names with phone number for communication.

D2 - Copy of letter dated 27.08.2002 issued by State Resource Centre, Kerala.

D3(a) - Sample card Rs. 30/100

D3(b) - Sample card Rs. 25/100

D3(c) - Sample card Rs. 22/100

D3(d) - Sample card Rs. 22/100

D3(e) - Sample card Rs. 25/100

D4 - Photocopy of sample visiting card

D5 - Copy of sample visiting card

D6 - Copy of sample visiting card

D7 - Copy of page No. 59 & 60 of report.

D8 - Copy of advertisement list of opposite parties.

D9 - Brochure produced by opposite party.

D10 - Feature published by Varamozhi.

D11 - Feature with oil painting published by Varamozhi.

D12 - Newspaper cutting of Malayala Manorama dated 03.07.80

D13 - Feature published in Vellinakshathram weekly.

 PRESIDENT