DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 5th day of October 2023
Filed on: 16/10/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No.436/2018
Complainants
1. Maria Babu, D/o Babu, Vettikkadan House, JC, Gokulam Apartments, Kaduval. Perumbavoor. Rep by power of attorney Holder Renny James, W/o Late James aged: 53 years, Maruthur House, Koovappady P.O. Pappanpady, Perumbavoor.
2. Shalu, D/o Babu, Vettikkadan House, IC, Gokulam Apartments, Kaduval, Perumbavoor, Rep by power of attorney Holder Renny James, W/o Late James aged: 53 years, Maruthur House, Koovappady P.O, Pappanpady, Perumbavoor.
(By Adv.Renny James)
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. The Proprietor, Glow Designer Hub, Oushadi Junction, M.C. Road, Perumbavoor-683542.
2. The Proprietor, Glow Designer Hub, N.H.Bypass, Opp Ernakulam Medical Centre, Palarivattom-682025.
(Ops 1 and 2 rep. by Adv.C.J.Soloman, Surya Complex, Near Shastha Temple Court Road, Perumbavoor)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the complainants in this case, who reside in Bedford, UK, and hold British passports, engaged with the Opposite Parties, who are involved in the textile business, to provide designer wear for a baptism function in Kerala, India, scheduled for 12.5.2018. The complainants were convinced by the Opposite Parties' promises of high-quality dresses that would be perfectly stitched. They paid an initial advance of Rs.6000/- on 27.4.2018 and additional amounts later.
However, despite promises to complete the work by 10.5.2018, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver on time. On the day of the function, they delivered improperly stitched dresses, causing great inconvenience. The complainants were forced to purchase new dresses, incurring additional expenses. The Opposite Parties refused to accept responsibility for the defective dresses and threatened the complainants when they requested a refund.
Subsequently, the Opposite Parties falsely accused the complainant of theft, but this claim was debunked by CCTV evidence. The police directed the Opposite Parties to rectify the dresses by 16.5.2018, but they failed to do so, and the complainants left the store without their dresses.
The complainants allege that the Opposite Parties used low-quality materials and improper stitching, resulting in defective products. The complainants requested compensation for their losses and mental agony through legal means but received an unsatisfactory response from the Opposite Parties.
The complainants now seek redress through this complaint, requesting:
A. Refund of the Rs. 19,200/- advance paid with 18% interest from 27.4.2018 till realization.
B. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony, expenses, and inconvenience.
C. Costs of the proceedings amounting to Rs. 25,000/-.
2). Notice
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice and filed their versions.
3). THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
The Opposite Parties acknowledge that the complainants contacted them for designer wear for a baptism function and that they provided photos of dress materials and patterns, which the complainants approved on Facebook. The Opposite Parties claim that the designs were delivered to the complainants as agreed, and Complainant No. 1 received and approved the stitched dress at the Opposite Party's store. They also assert that the full payment was not made at that time.
The Opposite Parties state that a dispute arose, which led to both parties being called to the police station in Perumbavoor, where they agreed on a compromise. According to the Opposite Parties, the complainants agreed to pay Rs. 14,000 and return a shawl worth Rs. 4,000.
The complainants' claim of not being able to use the dress for the baptism and purchasing a new dress from Lulu Mall is false. The complainants are raising these issues as a tactic to avoid paying the balance amount as per the compromise reached at the police station.
The Opposite Parties have six years of running the store without complaints and deny any unfair trade practices. The quality of the dress and stitching was high and the complainants' claims were fabricated for the purpose of the case.
In conclusion, the Opposite Parties request that the complaint be dismissed with costs awarded to them, as they believe the complainants are not entitled to the relief sought.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced a proof affidavit and 9 documents that were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-9. The complainant was examined as PW1.
EXHIBIT A1: the original Power of Attorney was executed in Favor of the complainant.
EXHIBIT A2(Series): photographs of the functions.
EXHIBIT A3: True copy of the Legal Notice Dated 22.052018.
EXHIBIT A4(Series): The true copy of the postal receipt for the issuance of Legal Notice Dated 22.052018.
EXHIBIT A5: The true copy of the Reply Notice Dated 07.062018.
EXHIBIT A6: The opposite parties wilfully unclaimed the notice and sent it back on 05-06-2018.
EXHIBIT A7(Series).: The estimate bills issued by the 1st Opposite Party.
Exhibit- A8- (Series): The WhatsApp message conversation details with the 1st Opposite party.
EXHIBIT A9: The Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Umesh Sudhakar.
5) 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 parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) 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 that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced EXHIBIT A7(Series) issued by the 1st Opposite Party. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the aunt of the first complainant held the Power of Attorney for both complainants. As per her affidavit, marked as Exhibit-A1, the complainants had entrusted the Opposite Parties to provide designer wear for a baptism function in Kerala on 12.05.2018. They had been convinced by photographs of designer wear and promises of superior quality conveyed by the Opposite Parties through WhatsApp, evidence of which was presented as Exhibit-AB (Series).
Upon these assurances, an advance payment was made. But as events unfolded, the Opposite Parties frequently demanded additional payments. The quality of the outfits provided, however, was far from satisfactory. Making matters more contentious, the Opposite Parties, instead of addressing the grievances, intimidated the complainants against seeking a refund.
The representative suggests a pattern in the Opposite Party's dealings, hinting that this isn't an isolated case of poor quality. The Opposite Parties might be consistently deceiving their patrons by delivering inferior products under their brand's banner, an act she terms as an unfair trade practice.
A legal notice was dispatched to the Opposite Parties to address the grievances. The first the Opposite Party replied with a letter filled with denials, marked as Exhibit-A5, while the second the Opposite Party neglected to claim the notice, documented as Exhibit-A6.
The trauma and distress arising from this ordeal took a toll on the first complainant's mental well-being, leading to hospitalization. Medical records and a certificate were introduced as Exhibit A9 to support this claim.
In total, the representative, as the Power of Attorney holder, submitted six crucial documents marked from Exhibit-A1 to Exhibit-A9, to bolster the claims made. She now urges the commission's intervention, seeking an order against the Opposite Parties for their purported unfair trade practices and a directive to compensate the complainants for their anguish, inconvenience, and financial setbacks.
This unfolding case underscores the significance of accountability in commercial interactions and highlights the possible repercussions when trust between businesses and their clients gets breached.
Top of Form
Contrary to the complainants' narrative presented to the commission, the Opposite Parties provide a distinct interpretation of the events surrounding the transaction for the designer wear meant for a baptism function.
The Opposite Parties assert that after the initial contact, they dutifully provided photos of dress materials and patterns, receiving confirmation and approval from the complainants on Facebook. Standing firm in their account, they claim that they met their end of the bargain, delivering designs in concurrence with what had been mutually agreed upon. The Opposite Parties emphasize that Complainant No. 1, having personally inspected and approved the stitched dress at their store, failed to make the complete payment.
Highlighting the subsequent dispute that arose from this transaction, the Opposite Parties mention that the disagreement reached a point where the involvement of the local police in Perumbavoor became necessary. It was here, under official oversight, that both parties arrived at a settlement. According to this agreement, the complainants were to pay Rs. 14,000 and return a shawl priced at Rs. 4,000.
Challenging the authenticity of the complainants' claims, the Opposite Parties label the allegations about the unsuitability of the dress for the baptism and the alleged subsequent purchase from Lulu Mall as mere fabrications. They speculate that these claims might be tactics employed by the complainants to circumvent the agreed payment, a consensus reached at the police station.
In defense of their reputation and quality of service, the Opposite Parties reference their six-year-long unblemished business history, devoid of any notable complaints. Denying any indulgence in unfair trade practices, they attest to the high quality of their dress material and stitching. In their perspective, the complainants might have constructed these allegations for their benefit in the case.
Concluding their version of events, the Opposite Parties fervently appeal to the commission, requesting the dismissal of what they perceive to be a baseless complaint. This alternative account emphasizes the multifaceted nature of such disputes and the necessity of a thorough and objective examination to unveil the actual course of events.
As per the Consumer Protection Act, the mandate is to protect the interests of the consumers against deficiencies and defects in goods or services. Any shortfall in the expected quality of service or product, given a prior commitment, is deemed to be a deficiency in service. The given transaction falls squarely within the ambit of this definition.
The complainants entrusted the Opposite Parties with the task of providing designer wear for a baptism function. This trust was based on a series of interactions, supported by Exhibit A8 (Series) showcasing WhatsApp conversations, which highlight the promises made by the Opposite Parties.
While the Opposite Parties assert that they have a history of providing high-quality service, the immediate case at hand showcases a stark deviation from this claimed norm. The evidence, especially Exhibit A9, further establishes the mental anguish the complainants underwent, which can be attributed to the non-fulfilment of promises by the Opposite Parties.
The pivotal point of contention remains the quality of the dresses delivered. The complainants have substantiated their claim of deficiency in service with Exhibit A7 (Series) – the bills – showcasing the sum paid, and Exhibit A8 (Series) – the WhatsApp conversation details, highlighting the Opposite Party's assurances.
Taking reference from the judgment in "Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute" (1995) 3 SCC 583, the Supreme Court opined that "The consumer is entitled to get what he pays for in terms of quality." This case law strengthens the complainants' plea for relief.
In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994 (4) SCC 225), The Honourable Supreme Court held the meaning of the expression "consumer" in the following words:
"The consumer as the terms implies is one who consumes. As per the definition, consumer is the one who purchases goods for private use or consumption. The meaning of the word ’consumer’ is broadly stated in the above definition so as to include anyone who consumes goods or services at the end of the chain of production. The comprehensive definition aims at covering every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and services. The consumer deserves to get that he pays for in real quantity and true quality. In every society, consumer remains the centre of gravity of all business and industrial activity. He needs protection from the manufacturer, producer, supplier, wholesaler and retailer. "
Furthermore, the alleged compromise at the police station in Perumbavoor does not nullify the original contract entered into by the parties, nor does it absolve the Opposite Parties of their primary obligation to provide designer wear as promised. If the Opposite Parties' accusations of theft were genuine, they could have presented the CCTV footage before the commission as evidence. Their failure to do so further undermines their credibility
In conclusion, the complainants traveled extensively, flying from the UK to Kochi, to partake in the joyous occasion of a baptism ceremony. However, the inappropriate attire provided by the Opposite Parties transformed a moment of joy into one of disappointment and negligence. While compensation can address certain grievances, it cannot recapture the joyful moments lost—once lost, they are gone forever. while businesses are free to operate and offer their services, it is imperative that they do so ethically and transparently, honoring their commitments. The Consumer Protection Act was instituted to ensure this very ethos. This judgment hopes to reinforce this principle.
Based on the presented findings, the complainant has successfully proven that the opposite parties were negligent and provided deficient service. As a result, the complainant's request for compensation for the pain, hardships, emotional distress, and financial losses caused by this negligence and unfair trade practice is deemed appropriate and justified.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief. The complainant has suffered severe pain, emotional distress, and significant financial expenses due to the alleged negligence and unfair trade practice. To address these issues, the complainant is entitled to compensation.
We find the issue Nos. (II) to (IV) are also found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. 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 parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Parties shall refund the Rs. 19,200/- that the complainants paid as an advance for stitching the dress materials.
- The opposite Parties shall pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants for the mental agony, expenses, and inconvenience caused.
- The opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.10, 000/-towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite Parties be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) above shall attract interest @9% interest from 27.04.2018 till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 5th day of October 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia TN., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s evidence
EXHIBIT A1: the original Power of Attorney was executed in Favor of the complainant.
EXHIBIT A2(Series): photographs of the functions.
EXHIBIT A3: True copy of the Legal Notice Dated 22.052018.
EXHIBIT A4(Series): The true copy of the postal receipt for the issuance of Legal Notice Dated 22.052018.
EXHIBIT A5: The true copy of the Reply Notice Dated 07.062018.
EXHIBIT A6: The opposite parties wilfully unclaimed the notice and sent it back on 05-06-2018.
EXHIBIT A7(Series).: The estimate bills issued by the 1st Opposite Party.
Exhibit- A8- (Series): The WhatsApp message conversation details with the 1st Opposite party.
EXHIBIT A9: The Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Umesh Sudhakar.
