Complaints filed on: 24-08-2020 Disposed on: 05-10-2021 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU CC.No.43/2020 DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 PRESENT SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER Complainant: - Smt.Divya D/o H.S.Basavarajappa Aged about 37 years, residing At Thimmegowda Layout, Behind Vidyavahini College, Girinagar, Tumkur city (In person) V/s Opposite party:- The Proprietor, M/s Sri Karan Textiles, K.R.Extension, K.R.Road, Tumkur city (By Sri.K.S.Shivakumar, Advocate) ORDER SRI.KUMARA.N, MEMBER This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the OP Proprietor, M/s Sri Karan Textiles, Tumakuru to pay the sarees total consideration amount of Rs.5,700-00 with interest @12% p.a. from 6-7-2020 till its realization along with compensation of Rs.10,000-00 and litigation cost of Rs.10,000-00. 2. It is the case of complainant that the OP is one of the leading textiles business man in Tumakuru city. The complainant is the regular customer of the OP and used to purchase clothes regularly from him. The complainant had purchased three fancy cotton sarees from the OP after the assurance of quality of the said sarees made by the OP by paying Rs.1,900-00 each in total Rs.5,700-00 vide receipt no.SKT-107237 dated 12-1-2020. After purchasing the said sarees the complainant had started using the sarees and intent to wash the sarees as per direction given by the OP at the time of purchase. 3. The complainant had dipped the sarreis in the water at that time the sarreis became shrink and now they are unable to wear. Immediately, the complainant had approached the OP and exhibited the defect sarreis in front of the OP. The complainant told that the said sarreis are unable to wear hence, sought for exchange of sarreis or return the consideration amount. But the OP refused for exchange of sarries and also denied to pay the consideration amount. Thereby the OP showed his negligent act and thereby committed unfair trade practice. Thereafter the complainant has got issued notice to OP on 6-7-2020 by RPAD calling upon the OP to take back the defective sarreis or repay the consideration amount. The said notice was duly served on the OP and inspite of service of notice the OP has failed to comply hence, this complaint. 4. In response to the notice, the OP appeared through his learned counsel and filed written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP hence, the question of paying any compensation does not arise at all. The OP admitted that the complainant had purchased three cotton fancy sarries from the OP and denied that the complainant is a regular customer of OP, and purchased the said sarries having trust on him. Further submitted that the complainant do not aware of the usage of said sarries, but these purchased sarries were fancy and required only dry wash and the fancy sarries does not carry any warranty. The customer shall purchase sarries with their risk. The OP further submitted that the fancy sarries are not promotable to get wash by using the water with such directions only those sarries sold to the complainant which not carry any warranty or guarantee. The OP further submitted that on the back side of the receipt issued to complainant stating that the items which are used will not be exchanged, exchange is to be done within seven days from the date of purchase on production of the original bill, rate list and the folding of the sarries should be intact and it should be in the condition of resale. The OP further submitted that discount sarries will not be exchanged. The complainant had used the sarries since from the date of purchase i.e. from 12-1-2020 till issue of the notice dated 6-7-2020 for almost more than six months and afterwards it is alleged defect in the sarries. It is nothing but abuse of the process of law and misusing the consumer laws. Hence, the complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. The SPA holder of complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and documents marked as Exs-P1 to P5 and produced one purchased fancy saree which is parrot green colour. On behalf of OP one T.Senthil Kumar proprietor of M/s Sri Karana Textiles has filed affidavit evidence. 6. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and OP in addition to written brief submitted by the complainant and the points that would arise for determination are as under: 1) Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of OP? 2) Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows: Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: In the partly affirmative for the below REASONS 8. Point No.1 and 2: The complainant has vehemently argued that she had purchased three fancy cotton sarees from the OP by having trust. After the assurance made on quality of the said sarees by the OP and followed the instructions given by OP for wash. The sarees after the wash shrink and unable to wear as said sarees were defective. The OP denied to replace the said sarees or repay the consideration amount of Rs.5700-00. The complainant in her affidavit evidence has reiterated the averments of complaint. 9. The complainant has produced Ex-P3 original receipt given by OP bearing no.SKT-107237 dated 12-1-2020 for Rs.5700-00. Ex.P1 is notice issued to OP and Ex.P2 is the postal track. Ex.P4 is the postal receipt. 10. Ex.P3 proves that the complainant had purchased three sarees from the OP by paying consideration of Rs.5700-00 (Rs1900-00 per saree). Ex.P1 is a copy of the complainant notice in which asked the OP to replace the defective sarees or repay the consideration amount of Rs.5700-00. 11. The OP learned counsel submitted that the complainant had purchased three sarees from the OP. The learned counsel argued that the OP has not given assurance of quality to the complainant since the purchased sarees are of cotton fancy. The OP counsel further submitted that the cotton fancy sarees do not carry any warranty and with the risk of the customer the said sarees were sold to the customer. The OP counsel further submitted that the complainant was not aware of the usage of sarees and fancy sarees wash to be done only by dry wash. The instructions and other conditions printed on the back side of receipt which was given to the complainant. The OP has not produced any documents to prove that receipt contained the conditions as submitted above. On perusal Ex-P3 original receipt no conditions are forthcoming or visible on front or back side of receipt. 12. The OP has not disputed the receipt of RPAD notice of complainant dated 6-7-2020. The documents produced by the complainant establish that the OP has committed not only deficiency in service but also played unfair trade practice by selling defective sarees to the complainant. The complainant has asked for refund of the defective sarees price of Rs.5700-00 and compensation of Rs.10,000-00. The complainant has approached the OP for replacing the defective sarees and when there was no proper response the complainant has got issued notice on 6-2-2020. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2000-00 and litigation cost of Rs.3000-00. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed with cost. The OP is directed to refund price of sarees a sum of Rs.5,700-00 within 30 days from the date of order. Otherwise the said amount carries interest @ 8% p.m. from the date of default till payment. It is further ordered that the OP shall pay compensation of Rs.2,000-00 and litigation cost of Rs.3,000-00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order otherwise, it carries interest @8% per annum from the date of filing complaint till the date of realization. It is further ordered that the complainant is directed to return the remaining two defective sarees at the time of receiving the amount from the OP. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 5th day of October, 2021). LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT