Date of filing:03.04.2013

                                                                                 Date of Disposal:28.08.2013

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: G. VIJAY KUMAR, PRESIDENT

    T. ANITHA, MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

C.C.No.24/2013

Between

M.Krishna Kumari,

Hindu,

W/o. Dr.M.Mallikarjuna,

Malli Nursing Home,

L.B.S.Road,

Piler,

Chittoor District                                                            …..Complainant.

And

J.P.Silks,

By its authorized signatory,

New No.218, Prakasam Road,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                            …..Opposite party.

          This complaint coming before us on 27.08.2013 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant and Sri.M.Thulasi Ram, counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum makes the following:

ORDER

DELIVERED BY G.VIJAYKUMAR, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming damages for defective goods supplied.       

          2.  The case of the complainant is that on the eve of her son’s marriage, she purchased sarees in the shop of the opposite party on two occasions by spending Rs.36,970/- and Rs.9,385/-, total worth Rs.46,355/- and at the time of marriage function, she presented the sarees to the bride and in-laws and they have also got the additional special work done for the sarees, by spending Rs.15,000/- and to their utter surprise and shock on the very day of wearing, the sarees were found to be damaged and torn and they were put to great humiliation as well as embarrassment and they never expected such a sub-standard quality of materials will be supplied by the opposite party and inspite of legal notice, they have not responded and thus constrained to file the present complaint to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.46,355/- and also another Rs.15,000/- for the expenses incurred by the complainant for getting the work done to the sarees and also a sum Rs.35,000/- as damages and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

3.  The opposite party entered in appearance and filed the written version, styled as counter, and pleaded ignorance as to the occasion for which the sarees were purchased, however, admitted the purchase under two bills but denied rest of the allegations that the goods in question were of sub-standard and alleged damages to the sarees and infact they sold good quality of goods produced by reputed manufacturers and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.  The complainant as well as the Manager of the opposite party filed evidence affidavit and were cross examined. The complainant marked Exs.A1 to A9. Both sides filed written arguments also and the case was posted to 01.08.2013 for oral arguments, but advocates were continuously avoiding the work due to on going ‘Samaikhyandra agitation’. Since, written arguments were filed and inspite of conditional orders, oral arguments were not advanced, this Forum proposed to dispose of the case on merits.

5.  Now the points for determination are:-

(i).  Whether the goods in question were defective?

(ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled for the damages?

6.  Point No.(i):-  The contention of the opposite party is that the goods supplied are of good quality. The complainant has literally demonstrated that the sarees when stretched at some places, particularly at the folding, the fabric is giving way and this has literally proved that the goods in question were of sub-standard quality. In the written arguments it is contended that as the goods were admittedly sold at reduced price of 50% and as there is no warranty for such goods, the question of deficiency of service does not arise.

7.  However, this argument is not supported in the evidence of R.W.1. Infact in the chief affidavit it is stated that the goods sold were of good quality and further in the cross examination, the witness stated that they are purchasing the goods from reputed manufacturers and are selling sarees of good quality. It is not as though the stock was old and is not covered by warranty. Infact during the course of cross examination of R.W.1 witness stated that “ because the goods already purchased by us will become out-dated, on occasion of arrival of new designs, we dispose of the old stock, periodically once in 3 or 4 months particularly during the important festivals like Deepavali, Dasara, Ashadamasam and New Year and Sankranti”. Hence, the contention that the stock was very old and that is why they were sold at 50% reduction, as argued by opposite party cannot be accepted. Infact the opposite party stated that the shop was opened four years back and they are not having any stock more than 1 or 2 years old. The witness further stated that sarees sold at their shop will last for about 10 years. The witness further stated that they are purchasing goods from reputed manufactures but cannot give the names of the manufacturers of the sarees as they are purchasing stocks from numerous manufactures at different places in India. In the light of the admission as well as the fact that within couple of days, the sarees were damaged and more particularly there is no special reason for the complainant to come-up with false case, this Forum feels that the deficiency of service that is supply of defective goods is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Infact it is not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice.

8. Point No.(ii):-  Now the point remains for consideration is the damages. The complainant admittedly spent Rs.46,355/- and the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount. The complainant claimed that she spent about Rs.15,000/- for getting design work done and stitching the blouses etc. but the complainant has not placed any proof in evidence of spending such huge amount. However, taking into consideration the nature of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant is entitled for special damages of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and thus the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.66,355/- (Rupees sixty six thousand three hundred and fifty five only). As special damages are awarded, interest on the said amount up to the date of this order need not be granted, however, the complainant is entitled for interest at 12% from the date of this order i.e. 28.08.2013, till the payment. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant. 

In the result, it is held that the deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice is proved and complainant is entitled for the value of the defective goods purchased i.e. Rs.46,355/- and also special damages of Rs.20,000/- i.e. total amount of Rs.66,355/- (Rupees sixty six thousand three hundred and fifty five only)with interest at 12% from the date of order, till the date of realization and costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).            

Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation and corrected by us and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 28^th day of August, 2013.

      Sd/-                                                                                             Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                               President.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

PW-1: M.Krishnakumari (Evidence Affidavit filed examined in the Forum).

RW-1: G.Sardarmal (Chief Affidavit filed examined in the Forum).

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

-NIL-

    Sd/-

President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                         Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.    

Copies to:

1.     The complainant.

2.     The opposite party.