M.S.Sasidharan filed a consumer case on 13 Jun 2008 against The Proprietor in the Kasaragod Consumer Court. The case no is C.C.No.78/2006 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Kerala
Kasaragod
C.C.No.78/2006
M.S.Sasidharan - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)
N.Vijayakumar
13 Jun 2008
ORDER
. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD consumer case(CC) No. C.C.No.78/2006
M.S.Sasidharan
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Proprietor
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. M.S.Sasidharan
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. N.Vijayakumar
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
D.o.F: 18/7/06 D.o.O;13/6/08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.No.78/06 Dated this, the 13th day of June 2008 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : MEMBER SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER M.S.Sasidharan, Mayolam House, Vellikoth, Ajanur : Complainant Hosdurg,Kasaragod. The Proprietor, Royal Silks and Sarees, Near Busstand, Kanhangad, : Opposite party Po.Kanhangad, ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT: Complaint bereft of unnecessaries is that : The complainant purchased a suiting for Rs.536.25 from opposite party. He tailored the suiting as trousers for Rs.150/-. But the color of the pant suiting faded in a single wash due to its inferior quality. Eventhough he taken the stiched trousers to opposite party, he was rebuked and insulted. He caused a lawyer notice to opposite party to which a false and frivolous reply received. But opposite party has not take any steps to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint. 2. In version opposite party admits the purchase of pants piece by complainant and also expresses his willingness to replace it . According to opposite party, he had asked the complainant to approach him for replacement of pant piece several times but complainant did not approach. 3. Complainant filed affidavit. Ext.A1, the purchase bill of suiting, Ext.A2 the lawyer notice and Ext.A3 the reply letter were marked. Opposite party filed counter affidavit in support of his contention. Both sides heard. 4. The purchase of suiting and its defect are admitted. In Ext.A2, opposite party expresses their apology to the complainant for the rebuke or insult if any caused to him from the staff of his shop. 5. But the fact remains that the grievance of the complainant is not yet redressed. Eventhough opposite party contends that he asked the complainant to approach him to replace the pant piece and the complainant did not come to his shop, opposite party did not make any attempt to bring defect free. Suiting to the Forum for replacement or make a representation before the Forum to that effect. Therefore, this contention does not appear to be plausible. 6. Further in view of the apology tendered by opposite party in Ext.A2, it is clear that complainant was subjected to rebuke and insult by the staff of opposite party. The contention of the complainant that it is rampant among the traders and service providers to insult or rebuke the customers who approach with complaints instead of attending their complaints with patience and try to redress their grievances calling much weight . A consumer at any cost should not have subjected to such a improper and insulting form of behaviour especially when we live in a country whose father of nation has reminded that every customer has to be treated as God. 7. Therefore, we allow the complaint and opposite party is directed to refund Rs.536.25, the purchase value of the suiting with Rs.150/- towards its tailoring cost. As settled by the Apex court, it is not only recompensing the consumer his loss and damages but also to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude and behaviour of the opposite party that the compensation has to be awarded . Hence opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for the loss and hardships sustained to him. Opposite party shall also pay Rs.1000/-towards the cost of this proceedings. Complainant shall return the stiched suiting material to opposite party on receipt of payment. Time for compliance of this order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which on application by the complainant proceedings U/S 25& 27 of C.P.Act will be initiated. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Ext.A1- purchase bill of suiting A2-Copy of lawyer notice A3- Reply of Ext.A2. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ Senior Superintendent