Kerala

Kozhikode

CC/10/34

DINESAN P - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE PROPRIETOR,BABAN'S DRESSES&TEXTILES - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2010

ORDER


KOZHIKODECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Complaint Case No. CC/10/34
1. DINESAN PKUNNATHARI,SOPANAM,PO CHEVARAMBALAM,KOZHIKODE-17KOZHIKODEKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. THE PROPRIETOR,BABAN'S DRESSES&TEXTILESKOVOOR,PO MEDICAL COLLEGE ,KOZHIKODE-8KOZHIKODEKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB., ,PRESIDENTHONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA., ,MemberHONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB., ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 26 Jul 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 By L.Jyothikumar, Member
 
            The complaint was filed on 25.01.2010.The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a saree from the opposite parties shop on 22.10.09. Cost of the saree was Rs.785/- while at the time of purchasing sari opposite party had assured the quality of the same. On the next week the sari was used by his wife. The colour of the saree was spread over the body of his wife and became useless. On 02.11.09 the complainant had produced the sari before the opposite party. But the opposite party did not take any steps to substitute the same. Hence the complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
 
            Notice sent to the opposite party was served. Opposite party did not appear before the forum. Hence OP was called absent and set-exparte. Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A3 marked. From the evidence and exhibits the case of the complainant is proved. Before filing the complaint, complainant had approached and also sent notice to the OP. From the reply to the notice it is clear that the sari was accepted by opposite party and not returned back to the complainant. Even though the complainant had informed the deficiency in service the OP did not take any steps to redress the grievances.
            Hence the Forum is of opinion that the OP was deficient in their service.
 
            In the result petition is allowed and OP is liable to pay the value of the saree Rs.785/- , compensation of Rs.500/- and a cost of Rs.250 to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
 
            Pronounced in the open court this the 26th day of July 2010.
 
               SD/- PRESIDENT                        SD/- MEMBER                SD/- MEMBER
 
APPENDIX
 
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
 
A1. Photocopy of quotation dt. 22-10-2009.
A2. Photocopy of letter dt. 23-11-2009 sent by the complainant to O.P.
A3. Reply notice dt. 7-12-2009.
 
Documents exhibited for the opposite party.
            Nil
 
Witness examined for the complainant:
 
PW1. Dinesan.P. (Complainant)
 
Witness examined for the opposite party.
            None
 
Date of filing: 25.01.2010                                             Sd/- President
 
                                    // True copy //
 
(Forwarded/By order)
 
 
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.

[HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,] Member[HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,] Member