BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 370/2002 Filed on 27.08.2002<br /> Dated : 31.05.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> K.C. Retna Mony, Deepalayam, 24/1814, Kannettumukku, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> Opposite party:<br /> The Proprietor, Snow White, Narayana Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. K.K. Rajeev, Punnapuram)<br /> <br /> 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 18.03.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 06.05.2008, the Forum on 31.05.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> Smt. Beenakumari.a: MEMBER<br /> The complainant in this case is Smt. Retnamony and the opposite party is the Proprietor, ‘Snow White’ Dry Cleaning Centre. The complainant had entrusted the opposite party with a sari for darning on 08.04.2002. The delivery date was 18.04.2002. But on that day the opposite party did not deliver the sari. And thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party for several times to get back the sari. But they did not deliver it. At last the complainant had sent a notice demanding the sari. The opposite party accepted the notice, but did not sent any reply or give back the sari. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for the redressal of her grievances. As per the complainant the cost of the sari is Rs. 2,500/-. <br /> <br /> The opposite party filed version and they denied the allegations. The opposite party admitted the transaction between the complainant and opposite party and they stated that the darning of sari was done on 18.04.2002 itself. But the complainant did not turn up to collect the same for nearly three months. The opposite party agreed to have received the notice. The reason for not sending the reply was that the above happening occurred solely due to the negligent attitude of the complainant herself. And also the opposite party produced the sari before this Forum. As per the opposite party the complainant filed this complaint only to vex and harass the opposite party and is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite party. <br /> <br /> Points to be considered:<br /> (i)Whether the complainant is a consumer?<br /> (ii)Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party?<br /> (iii)Whether the sari produced before this Forum by the opposite party is the same sari as that of the complainant?<br /> (iv)Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> Points (i) to (iv):- The complainant has filed affidavit and produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. The daughter of the complainant was examined as PW1 and the opposite party cross-examined her. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit. <br /> Ext. P1 is the copy of the receipt dated 08.04.2002 when the complainant gave the sari for darning to the opposite party. Ext. P2 is the copy of the notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party demanding to return the sari. Ext. P3 is the copy of acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> In this case the complainant had entrusted a sari to the opposite party for darning on 08.04.2002. The opposite party also admitted the fact. The case of the complainant is that thereafter the opposite party did not give back the sari after the work has been done. Inspite of repeated demands and demand notice, the opposite party did not give back the said sari. When the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum the opposite party has produced a sari. Opposite party was ready to hand over the said sari to the complainant after receiving the charge for their work. The complainant denied that the sari produced by the opposite party was not her sari. It is a different one. Her sari was a binny silk, the colour of the sari was green with violet border. The sari produced by the opposite party is not a binny silk, the body colour of the sari is violet and the border is black. This Forum observed the sari very carefully. Nowhere in the sari we could find any darning work. If the sari is the sari of the complainant there should be a darning work. The opposite party also contended that the complainant is not a consumer since the sari belongs to the daughter of the complainant. But the sari was given for darning to the opposite party by the complainant in this case. Hence the complainant is the consumer of opposite party. The complainant had entrusted the sari with the opposite party for darning work and the bill was issued in her favour. <br /> <br /> In these circumstances, this Forum is inclined to conclude that the disputed sari may be lost from the opposite party's side. It is the duty of the opposite party to keep the sari in safe custody. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to compensate it. <br /> <br /> In this case the complainant has no evidence to prove the cost of the sari. In the notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party it is stated that the sari was a binny silk one. From that point, this Forum decided that the least price of a binny silk sari is more than Rs. 1500/-. <br /> <br /> In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1500/- to the complainant as the price of the sari and also to pay Rs. 500/-towards compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost. Time for compliance two months. The opposite party shall take back the sari from the Forum after compliance of the above order. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 31st May 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 370/2002<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS: <br /> PW1 - Deepa<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> <br /> P1 - Copy of receipt dated 08.04.2002 for Rs. 20/- issued by the<br /> opposite party<br /> <br /> P2 - Copy of notice dated 17.07.2002 issued by the complainant to the opposite party<br /> P3 - Copy of acknowledgment card signed by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS:<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br />