KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

  APPEAL  NO:249/2007

                    JUDGMENT DATED:28..04...2010

PRESENT

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN                     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                     : MEMBER

Dr.Rita Kuriakose,

Q.No.2,EPF Quarters,                                    : APPELLANT

Gandhi Nagar, Kochi-20.

(By Adv:Sri.Sunny Markose)

            Vs.

The Proprietor,

M/s Yellow Mary,                                                       : RESPONDENT

M.G.Road, Kochi-35.

JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in the file of CC:63/2007 dated:17/4/2007.  The appellant is the opposite party under the orders to direct the opposite party to repay to the complainant Rs.745/- and pay her Rs.500/- towards cost within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  In short the complaint is unconcerned with the dispute regarding the purchase of two sets of salvar materials, one at a cost of Rs.715/- and the other at a cost of Rs.1490/- from the opposite party.  As regards the materials worth Rs.750/- there is no complaint.  The complainant got the salvar materials of Rs.1490/- stitched for a ceremony on 21/2/2007.  She wore the salvar and while traveling it found that the multi colours on the top started spreading wherever she seated.  The salvar was taken to the opposite party and even though they promised to exchange the same, nothing has been done so far.  Alleging deficiency of service the cost of salvar materials Rs.1490/- and stitching charges Rs.1000/- and compensation of Rs.6000/- and cost has been claimed.  But the opposite parties contended in their written version that the complainant purchased two sets of salvar materials and same has no defect.  The complainant brought the salvar alleging some defects and the Manager of the opposite party asked to entrust the same with him.  The matter could be taken up to the manufacturer but the complainant was not amenable for the same.  The complainant has not complied with any of the conditions or directions of the manufacturer of the materials.  The complainant got washed the salvar as ordinary wash on more than one occasion.  In the circumstances there is no liability for the opposite party.

2. The evidence consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and examined him as PW1.  Exts.A1 to A3 are the documents marked on the side of the complainants.  There is no evidence from the part of the opposite parties.  The Forum below answered all the disputed questions correctly and allowed the complaint.  The opposite party prefers this appeal from the above finding of the Forum below.  On this day this appeal came before this commission the counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the ground of the appeal memorandum that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party.  According to the appellant the defect appeared on the top of the salvar is due to the negligent washing of the materials and also argued that the complainant failed to obey the directions given by the manufacturer for the use of the salvar materials that is the reason of the defects occurred.  The respondent/complainant is a lady doctor approached the Forum below with a grievance in normal case the complainant, such as a lady doctor did not raise any such allegations about the defect of the salvar materials purchased from the opposite party shop.  The appellant/opposite party has also not having any case that there is no enmity between the complainant and the opposite party.  The appellant/opposite party shall be considered that a consumer like the complainant is the sole dependency of the business of the appellant/opposite parties.  It is necessary to apply some hospitality management towards the customers.  Sometimes the owner is not a person who is responsible for the entire problems, their managers or sales people are the responsible persons.  But any way to maintain a good friendly relation between the shops and the consumers is highly necessary for the promotion of the same.  The utmost satisfaction of the entire customers is a secret of the success of modern marketing technique of the business concerns.  Unfortunately the State of Kerala this practice is very negligent.

3. Any way this commission is not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below.  The Forum below rightly and correctly analysed the matter and points arised in this case and reached in a correct conclusion.  The order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable in accordance with law and evidence.  But this commission decide to modify the cost of Rs.500/- as cost of Rs.250/- accordingly.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part and direct the opposite party to refund to the complainant Rs.745/- and to pay Rs.250/- towards cost within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.   The points of the appeal are answered accordingly.

M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

M.V. VISWANATHAN  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.