IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 30th day of April, 2012
Filed on 14/02/2012
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No.44 /2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Thomas Gilroy Netto The Proprietor
S/o L.P. Netto, Roy Villa M/s Snow white Dry Cleaners
CMC – 10, Cherthala P.O. Paradise Theatre Compound
Cherthala Taluk Cherthala P.O., Cherthala Taluk
(By Adv. E.D. Zachariahs)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Thomas Gilroy6 Netto has filed this complaint before the Forum on 14.02.2012. The allegations of the complainant are as follows:- He had entrusted one sari, pants and a coat to the opposite party on 17.09.2011 for dray cleaning. At that time, opposite party had intimated him that the said items will be returned to him on 28.09.2011, after dry cleaning. He had paid a sum of Rs.220/- for dry clearing. The opposite party had issued receipt for the said amount. When contacted on 28.09.2011, for getting back the dry cleaned items, the opposite party had intimated that sari and pants were ready for delivery, but the coat was burnt while ironing. He paid Rs.70/- as charges for dry cleaning the sari and got it back. The pants and coat were pair and in Raymond Park Brand and these garments are the wedding dress of his son. Pants without coat is of no avail. The opposite party had assured him that they would give back new dress instead of the damaged dress, on or before 10.10.2011. When contacted on that date, the opposite party intimated that the set will be given after Deepavali. But the opposite party had not turned up and evaded for the assurance to supply the new item. Hence this complaint for proper relief.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. But they have not appeared before the Forum. Considering the absence of the opposite party, the Forum declared them as exparte; on 13.04.2012.
3. Considering the allegations of the complainant, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief?
3) Compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 to A3 – marked. Ext.A1 is the Receipt dt. 17.9.2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant at the time of entrusting the articles for dry cleaning. It shows the name of the opposite party’s unit – M/s Snow white Dry cleaners, Cherthala. The receipt shows that the opposite party had accepted a sum of Rs.220/- towards the charges for dry cleaning of item ie. sari, pants and coats. Ext.A2 is the copy of the registered letter dt. 11.10.2011 sent by the complainant to the opposite party requesting to settle the matter. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt of the above letter.
5. We have fully examined the entire matter of this case in detail and perused the documents given by the complainant in evidence. On verification, it can be seen that the complainant had entrusted 3 items with the opposite party for dry cleaning including coat. At the time of accepting the items, the opposite party had issued receipt for Rs.220/- towards the dry cleaning charges and that the opposite party had assured and offered that the item will be returned on 28.09.2011, after dry cleaning. When contacted by the complainant on that day, the opposite party had intimated him that the sari and pants were ready for delivery, but the coat was burnt while ironing. It is alleged by the complainant that the pants and coats were pair and in Raymond Park Brand and those items were the wedding dress of the complainant’s son, and the pants without the coat is of no use. Opposite party had assured that he would give back new dress in stead of damaged or before 10.10.2011. But the opposite party had not turned up. It is further alleged that the complainant had contacted the opposite party several times. But he has not obtained any positive steps from the opposite party. The whole facts shows that there is deficiency in service and gross negligence in handling the said items. The opposite party has ought to have taken proper care in handling the items, since the items are purchased for the marriage of the complainant’s son and entrusted the same with the opposite party for proper dry washing. But the opposite party has taken a negligent view in handling the coat. So the opposite party is fully bound to exchange a new one or to pay its price. The whole facts further shows that in spite of repeated requests of the complainant the opposite party has not taken any sincere efforts to settle the matter. It is further noticed that the opposite party has not appeared before the Forum, even though he has accepted the notice of this Forum. This shows the irresponsible attitude of the opposite party towards this issue. The whole facts further shows the unfair trade practice of the opposite party. Since there is negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party by way of irresponsible attitude to settle the matter, by payment of its price or entrust a new set to the complainant. The whole matter further shows that the action taken by the opposite party is highly illegal and arbitrary. The opposite party is entitled to pay the price of the set to the complainant, since the damage occurred while the set was in his possession for dry wash. Considering the all the aspects of this issue, we are of the view that the complainant is fully entitled to get the relief claimed in the complaint. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite party to pay the value of the coat ie. Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainant and further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, harassment, physical strain, loss of money and inconvenience caused due to the culpable negligence, grossest deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party by way of handling the item in negligent manner and purposeful refusal to pay the value of the coats or entrust a new item with the complainant in time, and drag on the matter without settlement. We hereby further direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of this proceedings to the complainant. We further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite party for the realization of the above said amounts, in case if the opposite party has violated the order of this Forum. We hereby direct the opposite party to comply with this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2012.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan;
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Receipt dt. 17.9.2011
Ext.A2 - Copy of the registered letter dt. 11.10.2011
Ext.A3 - Postal Receipt
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
