DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2023
Filed on: 06.02.2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No.63/2020
COMPLAINANT
Lakshminarayanan.K.S, Aged 65 years, S/o.A.R.Subramanian Embranthiri, Mythri Nagar, Vaduthala.P.O, Akshaya, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 023. Mobile No. 90378 89873. E Mail ID-ksrugmini@gmail.com
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
The Manager, M/s.Milan Design, Opposite Maharajas College Grounds, Ernakulam. Phone-0484 2360101.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant’s wife, Rugmini.S, purchased certain clothes from the opposite party on 14.07.2019 vide bill No. 002-AC-27603. The cloths were purchased in connection with complainant’s son's marriage scheduled on 05.09.2019. Among the cloths, one particular item (their item code. No.AC009000500001) was found to be developing wrinkles beyond reasonable level. Due to this defect that cloth gave an inferior quality look and feeling. Children for whom it was selected refused and refrained from wearing it. In total, 10 meters of the cloth was purchased. Its cost was Rs.295/ per meter. The Complainant realized the defect of the material only on 03.09.2019 on getting it stitched. While taking delivery of the stitched material, the tailor too pointed out the defect of the material. As there was no alternative, just one day, ie, on 06.09.2019 the dresses stitched using the said material was used, for the marriage reception, after stitching another transparent cloth over the particular cloth thereby hiding the wrinkles. As the material was not up to the mark, the complainant called the opposite party shop, on 09.09.2019 evening and requested for replacing the material or for refund of the amount. But one lady staff, reported to be the person responsible to deal the matter, refused citing the following reasons (1) It is nearly two months since the purchase. (2) Wrinkles are common in cloths and that they shall do deep wash and return it. That is what the support they will be able to do. The Complainant were not satisfied in their reply. Hence, the complainant sent a letter, under registered post, on 13.11.2019 requesting for a solution within 15 days. If not, informed the complainant’s intention to approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal commission. The complainant’s children, for whom it was purchased, are not using the cloths citing the defect. The Complainant is also convinced about the defect of the material. Complainant feels that it is an inferior in quality. The Complainant deserves a better treatment from the opposite party. The complainants had approached the commission seeking an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 2,950.00 (cost of the materiel,) Rs.300.00 (Conveyance, postage, photocopy etc.) Total Rs. 3,250,00/-.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not file the version.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 2 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-2.
Exhibit A-1: True copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 13.11.2019.
Exhibit A-2: True copy of the cash bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 14.07.2019.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced copies of cash receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant (Exhibit A-2). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .
The above case is filed by the complainant for replacing the material or refund of the cost of the materiel and other expenses incurred by the complainant due the deficiency in service of the opposite party.
The complainant submitted that the cloths were purchased in connection with complainant’s son's marriage scheduled on 05.09.2019. Among the cloths, one particular item was found to be developing wrinkles beyond reasonable level. The complainant called the opposite party shop, on 09.09.2019 and requested for replacing the material or for refund of the amount. The Complainant was not satisfied in their reply. The complainant sent a letter, under registered post, on 13.11.2019 requesting for a solution (Exhibit A-2). The complainant’s children, for whom it was purchased, are not using the cloths citing the defect. The complainant feels it is inferior in quality.
Eventhough notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party for appearing before the Commission and to file their written statement of defence they did not appear and filed version and hence set ex-parte.
The complainant has filed the Proof Affidavit and 2 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-2. All in support of his case. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to file a version.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The Opposite Party has inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the Opposite Party in failing to provide the complainant’s desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardships, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We found the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainants.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The opposite party shall refund the complainant Rs. 2,950.00 to the complainant towards the cost of the materiel.
ii) The opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- as the compensation for loss caused to the complainants due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices of the opposite party.
- The opposite party shall also pay the complainant Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (ii) above also shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Ambily transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 12th day of April, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1: True copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 13.11.2019.
Exhibit A-2: True copy of the cash bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 14.07.2019.
