By Smt. Bindu. R, President:-

          This CC is filed by Sabeena P,  W/o. Ayoob. M.A,  Melethil Home,  Meenangadi P.O,  alleging deficiency of service & unfair trade practice against  Arun,  Tulips, Fashion Boutique,  Meenangadi P.O  as 1^st  Opposite Party and M/s Kalyan Silks,  Kalpetta as 2^nd  Opposite Party.

          2. Complainant alleges that lured  by the advertisement and offers of the  2^nd  Opposite Party the Complainant approached the 2^nd  Opposite Party  on 05.12.2019,  since the marriage of the daughter of the Complainant was fixed to celebrate on 19^th  January 2020.  The Complainant decided to purchase Churidar Skirt,  Lahanka and other dress materials for the marriage ceremony  but these dresses were not readily available with the 2^nd  Opposite Party.  The 2^nd  Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the work of the dress materials can be done with the 1^st  Opposite Party who is working under them with more economy and quality and style.  The floor manager & the sales girls  made this offer to the Complainant  and accordingly the 1^st  Opposite Party came to the premises of the  2^nd  Opposite Party.  The 1^st  Opposite Party took the measurements and informed the Complainant that the materials selected by the Complainant shall be collected  by the 1^st  Opposite party from the 2^nd  Opposite party according to  requirement.  The 1^st  Opposite Party demanded for the advance and asked for the design  and model of the dresses.  The Complainant went to the office of the 1^st  Opposite Party at Kalpetta and paid an amount of Rs.10,000/-  as advance.  The 1^st  and 2^nd  Opposite Parties  told the Complainant that the 1^st  Opposite Party has a Grand Tailoring Unit at Panamaram and expert designers from other states are working there.  More over the dresses will be stitched and send to the Complainant before the date of marriage.  The 2^nd  Opposite Party made the Complainant believe that it is the 1^st  Opposite Party who is always doing  the stitching  work for the 2^nd  Opposite Party.  The Complainant states that she had paid an amount  of Rs.2,500/-  to the  1^st  Opposite Party after two days.  The   1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties were aware that the Complainant’s daughter, the bride,  decided to wear silver colour churidar on 17.01.2020,  red colour crop top skirt on 18.01.2020 and rose colour Lahanka on 19.01.2020.  The Complainant further states that she had contacted the 1^st  Opposite Party over phone and the 1^st  Opposite Party was told that the stitched dresses  will be delivered  in time on 15.01.2020. The 1^st  Opposite Party had given the stitched silver colour churidar which was not suitable by measurement and was not fit for the daughter of the Complainant and when the fact was informed  to the 1^st  Opposite Party it was told by the 1^st  Opposite Party that nothing can be done in that case and assured  that the remaining dresses will be given properly stitched in suitable size.  Since the Opposite Party had done stitching in a careless way  the Complainant had to purchase dress materials from Madeena Family  Collections,  Meenangady on 17.01.2020 for Rs.5,500/-  and since the dress materials stitched by the  1^st  Opposite Party was not suitable for use the Complainant had to give up the photo shoot of the function.

          3. When the 1^st  Opposite Party was contacted on 18.01.2020 the Opposite Party told that the dresses are stitched  and send from Kozhikode and shall be delivered on receipt and when again called at 3 P.M  on that day it was informed that the cargo  is delivered by bus and shall be handed over at  5.30  and so on.  Since the Complainant had not received the dress as  promised by the Opposite Party  the Complainant, and the bride were all become desperate and had to purchase dresses from Sindur and Maharani on payment of Rs.9,216/-.

          4. The Complainant states that on enquiry after the marriage function,  it was understood that there is no stitching  unit as narrated by the Opposite Parties and the 1^st  Opposite Party is entrusting the stitching work out side and charging  exorbitant bill  by colluding  with the 2^nd  Opposite Party  for the sake of business.

          5. On conclusion  the Complainant says that the 1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties had committed  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by making her believe that the dresses desired for,  by the Complainant shall  be delivered in time and by deceiving  in not delivering  had caused severe mental distress  and financial loss for which the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the Complainant a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-  and to return the amount of Rs.12,500/-  paid by the Complainant etc  along with other reliefs.

          6. Upon notice from the Commission 1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties appeared and had not filed  their version in time.  Subsequently on 20.04.2022 IA 113/2022 and IA 121/2022 is seen allowed and the exparte order dated 09.03.2022 is seen set aside and subsequently 1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties filed their version.

          7. 1^st Opposite Parties denied all the allegation raised by the Complainant and stated in their version that all the allegation made by the Complainant are false,  concocted  and stated with malafide intention.  The only thing admitted by the 1^st  Opposite Party is that on 05.12.2019 Smt. Jouhana  along with another woman approached the 1^st  Opposite Party and asked to stitch Churidar,  Lahanka & Gown and entrusted the materials and provided photos by sending  it through mobile No.9747597584 to the mobile phone No.9539333777 of the 1^st  Opposite Party via whatsApp  and  asked to stitch  it by 12.01.2020.  According to that on 16.12.2019,  the trial of the dresses done were sent to Jouhana via WhatsApp  and on 19.12.2019  the Jouhana came to  the havel  of the  1^st  Opposite Party and  informed that the measurements  are  correct after trying the dress  but  she told that the model is not as per her wishes and hence told the 1^st  Opposite Party to stitch it in another model.  But she had delayed to sent the model and sent it only on 03.01.2020 and  due to that the completion of stitching became difficult before 12.01.2020 and when it was  informed  to her,  she said  that it is to be worn only on 17.01.2020 and to be delivered it only 16.01.2020.  Accordingly all the dresses entrusted by her had been stitched  and delivered to her in time.  Thus  at the  time when the dress materials were received by the 1^st  Opposite Party,  the bill given to her had been returned signed by her.  She said at that time that the colour of the Churidar and the model  has not been according to her likes and desire.  When  the balance amount of Rs.5,000/-  was asked  for by the 1^st  Opposite Party,  she said that her father shall come and settle the account and had taken the stitched materials by the person accompanied by her.  The balance amount has not been given to the 1^st  Opposite Party so far.  This is the gist of the version filed by the 1^st  Opposite Party.

          8. The 2^nd  Opposite Party stated in their  version that the allegation of the Complainant that the Complainant had visited their shop in connection with the marriage of the daughter of the Complainant which was fixed on 19.01.2020 and that the sales girl and Floor Manager of the 2^nd  Opposite Party had given the assurance that the Churidar,  Croptop skirt,  Lahanka etc  required by the Complainant is not readily available and that if the materials of which is taken can be stitched according to the size,  measurement etc  the 2^nd  Opposite Party can engage the 1^st  Opposite Party  under them which will be profitable and ideal etc are not known to the 2^nd  Opposite Party and hence denied.  Further an amount of Rs.10,000/-  was paid to the 1^st  Opposite Party is also not known and the 2^nd  Opposite Party had not introduced anybody and the 1^st  Opposite party is not any one working  under the 2^nd  Opposite Party, further the 2^nd  Opposite Party denied that the 2^nd  Opposite Party never had made any assurance to the Complainant and had not undertaken or given assurance or introduced any one and all the allegations raised by the Complainant are false frivolous and against  real facts.  There was no deals by the 2^nd  Opposite Party with the Complainant and the Complainant had to produce evidences if any available with the Complainant to substantiate the obligation if any for the  2^nd  Opposite Party with the Complainant and in the absence of which the 2^nd  Opposite party do not have any liability or responsibility and all the allegations  raised  by the Complainant are therefore frivolous, meaningless  concocted and false.  Hence  2^nd  Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          9. Complainant filed  Exts.A1 to A5 and 1^st  Opposite Party filed Ext.B1.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and  1^st  Opposite Party was examined as OPW1  Ext.A1 filed by the Complainant is a copy of the wedding card Ext.A2 is a photocopy of a bill,  Ext.A3 is  a bill issued by Madeena Family Collection dated 17.01.2020,  Ext.A4 is a bill issued by Maharani Silks dated 18.01.2020,  Ext.A5 is a bar code    affixed on the name  card of Sindur.  Ext.B1 is a  bill of Tulips dated 05.12.2019.

          10. Following are the points  to be  considered in this case:-

1. Whether the Complainant has established her case on merit?
2. If so,  the amount of compensation  and costs to be awarded.

11. The Commission had made a thorough probe in to the contents of the

Complainant  with respect to all circumstantial evidences taking in to account the significance of dates of bill  with reference to the date of  ceremony and made examination on the facts of  both sides revealed in the deposition.  The argument of the Complainant is that she had visited the 2^nd  Opposite party who is a textile merchant for the purchase of some dress materials which were not available with 2^nd  Opposite Party at that time.  The purpose of the purchase of dress materials were for the marriage function of the daughter of the Complainant on 19.01.2020.  Since the ready made dresses were not  available the  2^nd  Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the 1^st  Opposite Party working under them shall stitch the materials and deliver  it to the Complainant if the Complainant select  the material available with the  2^nd  Opposite  Party.  Here the  question  arises as to whether the Complainant had agreed this  offer  and selected materials from the  2^nd  Opposite Party.  The  most crucial and vital aspect in this case is that the Complainant had failed to produce any documents or bills issued  by the  2^nd  Opposite Party to the Complainant.  The corner stone lies on the fact that if the Complainant had purchased materials from the 2^nd  Opposite Party for entrusting the 1^st  Opposite Party for stitching the Complainant  ought  to have produced the bill issued by the 2^nd  Opposite Party.  The Complainant  had not produced any bill issued  by the  2^nd  Opposite Party and hence the Complainant fails to establish  S.2(7)(i)(ii) of the  CP Act  enacting the consumer relationship of the  Complainant with the 2^nd  Opposite Party.  Hence 2^nd Opposite Party shall not have any liability to the Complainant to pay any compensation for loss if any sustained to the Complainant. 

12.  Further the Complainant  had produced a copy of cash bill  issued by Tulips  dated 05.12.2019 which shows  that an amount of Rs.15,000/- is charged against  which an advance of Rs.10,000 + 2,500  (as is seen on the bill)  is made.  This shows that the Complainant had entrusted some material with the 1^st  Opposite Party and the date of delivery of which is shown as 12.01.2020   subsequently it can be  seen that the Complainant had purchased some dress materials from Madeena Family Collection on 17.01.2020 as per Ext.A3 and from Maharani Silks on 18.01.2020 as per Ext.A4.   Among them A4 do not  cover the details of dress materials purchased. Ext.A5 is the barcode affixed on the name card of sindur. Simply on the basis of production of bills  showing the purchase of dress  materials in the absence of  bill of purchase from the shop of alleged   2^nd  Opposite Party,  the Commission cannot come to an inference that these materials were  purchased in lieu of the alleged purchase made from the 2^nd  Opposite Party and  had made deficient  by  1^st  Opposite Party by stitching.  The disparity and variation seen in Ext.A2 & B1 produced by the Complainant and the  1^st  Opposite Party the latter seems to be the original arises doubts regarding the authenticity of the arguments made by the Complainant and the 1^st  Opposite Party especially when endorsement that materials received is seen made in  Ext.B1 where as no such entry is seen in its copy  produced as ExtA2 by the Complainant.  Even though  PW1 was examined in box nothing  significant had deposed by PW1 and even the person who signed on the bill marked as Ext.B1  (ie  the daughter of the Complainant for whom  the purchase is made) had not been examined and PW1 states in the box that the disparity can be  explained  only by her daughter who signed  on it.  There is no vital points enabling  the  Complainant to establish her case had been deposed by her while she was  examining in box.  It is to be noted that OPW1 had deposed that he is unaware of the details of  purchase of the materials and the shop from which it is purchased.  He had also stated that  an amount of Rs.10,000/-  is paid by the Complainant for stitching and an amount of Rs.2,500/-  was paid subsequently.

          13. There is no element to prove the argument of the Complainant and  to establish deficiency of service and unfair trade practice either from 1^st  Opposite Party from the 2^nd  Opposite Party on the basis of material evidence or otherwise is derived  and therefore the Complainant had not established her case with the support of any documents and hence  point No.1 is found against the Complainant.  Since point No.1 is found against the  Complainant we do not  have analised  points No.2 and 3.   

Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission  on this the 20^th  day of July 2023.

Dated of filing:07.02.2020.                                                     

PRESIDENT        :    Sd/-

MEMBER           :    Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          Sabeena.                         Complainant.       

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1.        Arun Sai. M.P.               Business.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.      Copy of Wedding Invitation.

A2.      Copy of Bill.                         

A3.      Invoice.                                  dt:17.01.2020.

A4.      Bill.                                       dt:18.01.2020.

A5.      Bar code affixed on the name card of Sindur.                                           

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

B1.       Bill.                                                dt:05.12.2019.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER    :  Sd/-