O R D E R
By Smt.Sreeja.S., Member :
The case of the complainant is that he approached the opposite party on 18/3/13 at about 5pm for the purchase of wig made by natural human hair. They informed him that the same is imported from France and it would cost Rs.24,000/- and a two weeks’ time will be taken to deliver the product. Later on bargaining, the cost of the product fixed as Rs.22,000/- and various measurement of head were also taken. On the opposite parties call, complainant arrived at the opposite party shop on 22/3/13 at about 9.30am. Then opposite party informed that the wig is to be washed and brushed for which they have to wait there till 12.45pm. Even though the measurement was taken the wig did not suit properly and does not fit to the head. There was short hairs on its middle part and it looked old and ugly. When the complainant asked how they imported it in four days, they did not answered properly. The cover of the courier also found to be from Calcutta. Since the complainant convinced that the opposite party deceived him, he demanded for a new one instead of the purchased one or else to repay the money. The act caused heavy mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
2.On receiving notice opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed version. In the version they stated that the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party denies that the complainant approached them on 18/3/13 at abut 5pm. The allegation of import of wig from France and the time taken to is also denied. The cost of Rs.25,000/- and the allegation regarding measurement of head also denied. The reduced price of Rs.22,000/- also denied and the phone call, washing and brushing of the wig, waiting at the shop room and unsuitability of the wig also denied. Presence of short hair also denied. Showing of courier cover and allegation that the courier was from Calcutta also denied. The demand made to replace the wig or repay the money also denied. The actual facts allegedly stated by the opposite party is as follows: The complainant and his wife came to the opposite party shop on 22/3/13 and asked for a ladies wig. When the rate of the wig informed us Rs.22,500/-, they demanded the wig within a week time and they demanded for an estimate of the same and after deducting Rs.500/- and they provide an estimate of Rs.22,000/-. No advance also received from the complainant. Since the opposite party could not arrange the same, they informed it to the complainant. But he behaved rudely and on such enmity this complaint is filed misusing the estimate given by them.
3.Points for consideration are :
1)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2)If yes, what are the relief and cost?
4.Complainant produced proof affidavit and two documents. The documents marked as Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 - Estimate for Rs.22,000/-, Ext.P2 – visiting card. The document produced from the side of opposite party is marked as Ext.R1 – bill book from 27/1/10 to 10/2/17. Complainant is examined as PW1 and opposite party is examined as RW1. The wig is marked as MO1.
5.The complainant filed this complaint on the 5th day of allegedly purchasing a wig. Ext.P1 is the estimate bearing No.087 dated 22nd March. This fact is disputed by the opposite party contending that same is only estimate and no actual transaction has been taken place between the parties. On cross examination nothing has been put to the witness regarding the alleged case of issuance of estimate alone by the opposite party. The only question put to him that Ext.P1 is an estimate. We verified the MO1. It is a case where the peculiar physical appearance of the MO1 is also pleaded in the complaint. Hence the denial of the entire transaction has to be established by cogent evidence, especially when the complainant produced MO1 wig before this Commission. It is a common practice that the estimate is served instead of bill or invoice in the purchase. The contra evidence to shake Ext.P1 is Ext.R1. Ext.R1 is a bill book serially numbered 1 to 15. It is seen that only 42 leaves of the bill book alone used from 27/1/10 to 10/2/17. i.e. a period of 7 years. The notable discrepancies seen is that no bill seen issued in the year of 2013. But invoice 24,25 and 26 remain undated between the period 10/4/12 to 12/8/14. This creates high suspicion on the Ext.R1 regarding its genuinity and this Commission find that no reliance can be placed on Ext.R1 to discredit or shake the case of the complainant regarding Ext.P1. Considering the fact of immediate preferring of complaint that too party in person suggest the true nature of the complaint and opposite party could not discredit the case of the complainant or establish their own specific case. Hence we find that complainant proved his case. Considering the evidence and pleadings as a whole, we are inclined to allow this complaint in the interest of justice.
6. In the result complaint is allowed and hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If failing in which the amount will carry interest of 6% from the date of order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 29th day of January 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja.S Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair C.T.Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 - Estimate for Rs.22,000/-, Ext.P2 – visiting card
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – C.O.Antony
Opposite Party’s Exhibits
Ext.R1 – bill book from 27/1/10 to 10/2/17
Opposite Party’s witness
RW1 – Shafi Menath
Id/-
Member
