DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 22nd day of December 2022
Filed on: 28/01/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C. NO. 46/2020
COMPLAINANT
Sneha Ludiya John, Palliparambil House, Koonammavu P.O., Pin 683518.
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Lal Dry Cleaners, Kunnumpuram Junction, Door No. 50/2093B(1), Kochi 682024.
FINAL ORDER
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant has entrusted two sarees at the opposite party’s shop for dry cleaning. When the complainant has approached the opposite party to get the saree back, to the utter dismay the complainant has noticed that instead of dry cleaning the saree was dyed and changed to another colour. The complainant approached the opposite party several times to settle the matter. The complainant alleges that the action of the opposite party is deficiency in service and as a consumer she is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party it is because of the irresponsible actions of the opposite party and also due to the lack of service of opposite party that the complainant’s saree was dyed instead of dry cleaning the saree and hence this complaint.
2. Notice
Notice was sent to the opposite party from this Commission on 03/03/2020 and the said notice was returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. Hence it is treated as deemed service and consequently opposite party ex-parte.
3. Evidence
Evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which are marked as Exbt. A1. No oral evidence from the side of the complainant.
Heard.
The issues came up for consideration in this case are:
1. Whether any deficiency in service is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we consider issues No. (1) and 2) together.
The case of the complainant is that she had approached the opposite party for dry cleaning two sarees and instead of dry cleaning the saree, the saree was dyed with another colour. The complainant approached the opposite party several times to settle the matter and there was no response from the side of the opposite party. Exbt. A1 is a tax invoice for Rs.531/- dated 19/06/2019. As per Exbt. A1, the complainant has entrusted 2 sarees and one blouse for dry cleaning and the items are delivered to the complainant on 26/06/2019.
The complainant has not produced any other evidence to prove her allegations against the opposite party. The complainant has not produced the material object (saree) before the Commission. From Exbt. A1 document alone we cannot reach into a conclusion that opposite party has committed deficiency in service or unfair trade practice towards the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove her case with sufficient documents.
Hence the case of the complainant is decided not in favour of the complainant and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 22nd day of December 2022.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
EXHIBIT A-1: Tax Invoice dated 19/06/2019
OPPOSITE PARTIES’ EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 46/2020
Order Date: 22/12/2022
