FCI Colony, 2nd lane,
Palakkad. - Complainant
(Party in person)
Railway Station Road,
Palakkad. - Opposite party
O R D E R
Complainant purchased a saree worth Rs.1935/- together with sixty three other items from the opposite party shop on 24/09/2008. The same was purchased for wearing for the marriage function of her brother to be held on 31/10/2008 at Alapuzha. On 30/10/2008 complainant wore the saree for a trial and found that the top of the saree was torn. As the defect was noted the day before marriage and as she was busy with the marriage, she could not approach the opposite party on the same day itself. After returning from Alapuzha, on 04/11/2008 complainant approached the opposite party and informed the defect in the saree. Opposite party did not replace the defective saree. Instead behaved in a rude manner. The stand of the opposite party was that the defect noted is due to the mishandling by the complainant while using. Complainant claims an amount of Rs.3,500/- including the price of the saree as compensation.
2. Opposite party filed version contending the following:
Opposite party admits the purchase of the saree by the complainant. According to the
opposite party, complainant purchased the goods after examining it. No defects was noted at that time. The say of the complainant that the defect in the saree was noticed only on the day before marriage is false. Complainant approached the opposite party only after 41 days after the date of purchase. On examination opposite party found that the saree was used and the tearing was caused as a result of stepping on the same while walking. As the defect is due to the mishandling of the saree by the complainant herself, opposite party is not liable for any amount as compensation.
3. The evidence adduced consists of the affidavit of both parties. Exts.A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant. Defective saree marked as MO1.
4. Now the issues for consideration are,
Whether the opposite party is liable to compensate for the defective saree?
If so, what is the reliefs and costs?
5. Heard both parties and perused relevant materials on record. There is no dispute as to the purchase of the saree from the opposite party shop. According to opposite party, the tearing noted in the saree can only be caused as a result of stepping on the saree while walking. Further there is delay of 41 days in approaching the opposite party. Complainant has produced the saree before the forum and is marked Ext.MO1.
6. From Ext.A1 series it is evident that the complainant has purchased the said saree along with 63 other items. Purchase of the same is for the marriage of her brother at Alapuzha. The fact is revealed from Ext.A4 and A5. On examination of MO1, it can be seen that defect is not a patent one or that which can be easily noted. Another relevant fact to be noted is that tearing of the saree is in the top side. So the contention of opposite party that it is as a result of stepping on the same is unacceptable.
7. Admittedly there is delay in approaching the opposite party requesting replacement. But the complainant has properly explained the delay caused with convincing evidence. Opposite party by selling the defective saree has caused loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence complainant is entitled for compensation.
8. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of
Rs.1,935/- (Rupees One thousand nine hundred and thirty five only) being the price of the defective saree along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation. MO1 can be released by the complainant after the period of appeal.