DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 16^th  day of April 2024

                           Filed on: 21.06.2023

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member

C.C. No. 398/2023

COMPLAINANT

Joel Thomas, s/o.K.T.Joseph, Kotteparambil House, Chalikkavattom, Vyttila, Ernakulam-682 019

(by Adv.Basil Simon, Adv.Denny Varghese, Adv.Lijo Raju, Adv.Vijay V.Menon, 1^st Floor, Room No.1, H.B.51, Near KSHB Building, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-36)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

          M/s.Mathra Laundry and Dry Cleaners, 1^st Cross Road, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-682 036 rep. by its Proprietor.

F I N A L   O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant states that captivated by the display board of the opposite party he had decided to avail the services advertised.  Consequently, he entrusted the opposite party with his valuable premium white shirt, worth more than 2,000/- rupees and another premium fabric valued at more than Rs.1500/- with the opposite party for dry cleaning.  After a week, the opposite party returned the cloth to the complainant and collected Rs.160/- as payment for the dry cleaning charges.  Subsequently, the complainant on wearing the shirt seeing that the premium slim fit shirt torn apart and he tried to wear the other shirt which also was seen torn out.

The complainant addressed the opposite party, but the opposite party initially denied any involvement in the dry cleaning process with their establishment. Then the complainant swiftly produced the invoice issued by the opposite party and by seeing the undeniable evidence the proprietor of the shop intervened and assured the complainant that the matter shall be enquired.  Even after the lapse of 2 weeks, since there was no response and instead of providing assistance the opposite party humiliated the complainant. Due to negligence and lack of response the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party but the opposite party had not responded to the letter. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite party the complainant had approached the Commission seeking for issuing direction to the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.3500/- towards the cost of the shirts and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and other reliefs.

2. Notice

     Eventhough the notice was issued to the opposite party, the opposite party had not turned up and therefore the opposite party is set ex-parte.

3. Evidence

The complainant filed 4 documents which are marked as Exbt.A1 to A4.  The two shirts described above are produced by the complainant which are marked as MO1 and MO2.

5)       The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainants?
2.  

(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?

6)       Point No..(i)

          The Commission on going through the complaint, documents produced by the complainant and also on examining the MO1 and MO2 observed the following facts.  Exbt.A1 goes to show that the complainant had entrusted two shirts with the opposite party on 21.02.2023 for dry cleaning and paid an amount of Rs.160/- as dry cleaning charges.  Exbt.A2 is a postal acknowledgment receipts sent to the Proprietor of the opposite party by the complainant. Exbt.A3 is a receipt issued by the postal authorities.  Exbt.A4 is a copy of the lawyer notice.

          Mo1 and Mo2 are two shirts which are seen torn out.  The Commission ascertains from Exbt.A1 that the complainant had entrusted 2 shirts for the purpose of dry cleaning with the opposite party on 21.01.2023 and had paid an amount of Rs.160/- as dry cleaning charges.  As stated in the complaint, the complainant had detected and observed that the shirts received back after dry cleaning was in a torned condition.  It can be seen that the date of endorsement of two shirts for dry cleaning and the date of sending lawyer notice due to the non-response of the opposite party are in the near dates which can be taken as clear evidence to substantiate that the opposite party had not responded to the request of the complainant as stated in the complaint. Since the opposite party had not responded to the request of the complainant, the complainant sent a legal notice and even the notice sent by the lawyer was also not replied by the opposite party.

          Eventhough the notice was sent from this Commission, the opposite party had not turned up or replied to the notice, it very clearly proves that the opposite party is accepting the allegations raised by the complainant and the higher courts on various occasions have pointed out in similar circumstances stated above that the non-response of the opposite party to the notices amounts to admission of offense which is absolutely matching in this case.  Hence the complainant had fully proved his case on merit and therefore the following orders are issued.

1. The opposite party shall refund an amount of Rs.3,500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) to the complainant being the cost of two shirts spoiled by the opposite party.
2.  The opposite party shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty Five thousand only) for unfair trade practice and deficiency of services.
3. An amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) shall be given to the complainant as cost of the proceedings

The above order shall be complied with by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  If the above order is not complied within 45 days, the amount ordered as (1) and (2) above shall attract interest @7.5% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.   

      Pronounced in the Open Commission this 16^th day of March  2024.

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                             V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                             D.B.Binu, President

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                             Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

                                                                             Forwarded by Order

                                                                             Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainants’ Evidence

Exbt. A1-     copy of dry cleaning bill issued by Mathra Laundry & Dry Cleaning dated 21.01.2023 

Exbt.A2       copy of acknowledgment receipt

Exbt.A3 -     copy of postal receipt

Exbt.A4       copy of legal notice   

Opposite party’s evidence :    Nil

Date of Despatch   :: By Hand   :: By Post