THE PROPRIETORS,THE GOLDEN SHOP V/S M.K.UNNIKRISHNAN
M.K.UNNIKRISHNAN filed a consumer case on 16 Apr 2008 against THE PROPRIETORS,THE GOLDEN SHOP in the Ernakulam Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/35 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Kerala
Ernakulam
CC/08/35
M.K.UNNIKRISHNAN - Complainant(s)
Versus
THE PROPRIETORS,THE GOLDEN SHOP - Opp.Party(s)
16 Apr 2008
ORDER
CDRF-ERNAKULAM,KATHRUKKADAVU, COCHIN17 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/35
M.K.UNNIKRISHNAN
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
THE PROPRIETORS,THE GOLDEN SHOP THE SECRETARY
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. A.RAJESH 2. C.K.LEKHAMMA 3. PROF:PAUL GOMEZ
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
O R D E R C.K. Lekhamma, Member. In short, the case of the complainant is as follows: He walked into the first opposite party's shop on 7-11-07 and paurchased 2 sets of 'set mundu'. One of the set mundu was used on the same day and washed the next day. After sometime, it was noticed that the cloth was shrunk and was torned. The complainant immediately contacted the first opposite party and informed the matter. The first opposite party assured him that the matter would be brought to the notice of the second opposite party, the manufacturer and would replace the same after getting permission from him. The first opposite party also instructed the complainant to use the second set. Accordingly, he subjected the second set for washing without use and the result was found to be the same. The matter was again intimated to the first opposite party and then they said that the second opposite party was contacted, but no reply was received.The same process was repeated for several times. The first opposite party was adamant in not replacing the spoiled goods without instruction from the second opposite party. The complainant issued notices to the opposite parties informing them of the damage to the article calling upon them to compensate the complainant, claiming Rs. 3,000/- as damages. The opposite parties turned a duff ear to his call. Hence this complaint. 2. According to the version filed by the first opposite party, it is a sales depot of the second opposite party, which is a Handloom Workers Co-operative Society. The second opposite party makes handloom fabrics and supplies them to the various depots. The first oppoiste party admits that the complainant had purchased 2 set mundu from the shop. The first opposite party claim that the shrinkage caused due to washing is common to every handloom fabrics and it would become normal when starched and pressed. The second set mundu was washed by the complainant to remove dirt in it., According to the first opposite party, no replacement could be made because there was no damage caused to the cloth. The first opposite party further contended that when the second opposit party was contacted it had turned down the request for replacement on the ground that the cloth could be replaced only if it was torn or any damaged was caused to the 'Kasavu'. No such complaint was raised by the complainant in this case. So the first opposite party rejected the demand for replacement of the said mundu. The first oppoiste party further maintains that even if damage is caused to the cloth it is the responsibility of the second opposite party to replace the same. The first opposite party is helpless in this regard. 3. The complainant from his side produced 4 documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. No oral evidence was adduced from his side. The complainant produced the subject matter of the complaint for physical varification of the damage of the cloth. Eventually it was returned to him. The first opposite party filed version and second opposite party abstained from co-operating with the proceedings. Heard the complainant in person and the counsel for first opposite party. 4. Points arise for consideration are the following :- I) Whether the cloth is damaged or not? ii) Quantum of damages and cost if at all payable? 5. Point No.i) :- Exts. A1 and A2 stand testimony to the sale of cloth in question. We have personally examined the cloths and found that the complaint alleged is sustained. Now the question is with regard to who must be answerable in damages. The first opposite party contends that they are only distributors. The second oppoisite party, the manufacturter has not turned up in this Forum to adduce their contention, eventhough Exts. A3 and A4 goes to show that they have adequate information regarding the complaint. It seems that their absence tantamount to admission of their liability. Therefore it is our considered view that the second opposite party must shoulders the responsibility for the defect in the manufacturing of the cloths in dispute. 6. Point No.ii) :- According to Exts. A1 and A2 receipts, the price of the commodity is Rs. 1,067.99 and Rs. 876.42 respectively. Thus the complainant had incurred a total of Rs. 1,944.41 towards cost to purchase the cloths. This amount has to be reimbursed by the second opposite party, the manufacturer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the parties will bear their respective costs. 7.In the result, we allow the complaint and direct that the second opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,944.41 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to the complainant from the date of purchase of the cloths till realisation. The complainant shall return the defective goods to the second opposite party. The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 22nd day of April 2008. Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President. Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.