Live
- CM Revanth, officials to inspect residential, Gurukul hostels today
- SSBs to be set up soon in Nellore
- TGPSC all set for holding Group-II exams
- Commissioner directs officials to ensure safe water supply amid heavy rains
- Youth urged to donate blood to save lives
- National Energy Conservation Week from today
- Tourism projects to be put on fast track as VMRDA sets targets
- AI in KGBVs to empower students, build competencies
- Waltair Division observes ‘Energy Conservation Week’
- Srikakulam police bust two fake note gangs
V-Square Kankatala showroom penalised for selling defective sari
District Consumers’ Forum-1 has directed the managing director of V-Square Kankatala showroom to repay Rs 4,950 towards the cost of the Uppada Pattu sari with 9 per cent interest from January 7, 2015 till the date of realisation, Rs 2,000 as compensation and Rs 2,000 as legal expenses to the complainant B Ch Krishna Murty of MVP Colony in the city in a month’s time for selling a defective sari.
Visakhapatnam: District Consumers’ Forum-1 has directed the managing director of V-Square Kankatala showroom to repay Rs 4,950 towards the cost of the Uppada Pattu sari with 9 per cent interest from January 7, 2015 till the date of realisation, Rs 2,000 as compensation and Rs 2,000 as legal expenses to the complainant B Ch Krishna Murty of MVP Colony in the city in a month’s time for selling a defective sari.
As per the facts of the complaint, Krishna Murty purchased the sari on January 7, 2015 for his daughter who later found that it was a damaged sari with number of scratches and thread cuttings. When the complainant approached the showroom for a replacement, they asked to come on February 28 in view of expecting fresh stock.
Accordingly, the showroom people examined the sari on February 28 and asked him to come after a fortnight after acknowledging it with an entry voucher. Even after several requests, the damaged one was not replaced. The issue was postponed without any valid reason. Vexed with the apathy of the noted showroom, the consumer approached the Forum seeking justice.
The opposite party (Kankatala showroom) filed a counter stating that the cash bill dated January 7, 2015 stated to be issued by the showroom, was not issued in the name of the complainant and hence, he is not entitled to file a petition. About the entry voucher issued on February 28, 2015, it said generally an entry voucher will be issued to any person carrying goods from other shops adding that there was no deficiency in service on its part.
The complainant filed an evidence affidavit while both the counsels filed written arguments to the Forum. After perusing the entire case record, Forum-1 President H Ananda Rao and Member K V R Maheswari observed that generally no cloth showroom issue bills in the name of consumers and hence the plea of the opposite party that the bill was not in the name of the consumer, was not taken into consideration.
About the showroom’s claim with regard to the issuance of an entry voucher, it failed to substantiate the same with proper evidence. The Forum which examined the sari at the time of arguments, noticed scratches and thread cuttings and said that the sari was a defective one. Moreover, it said that under the principles of natural justice, every trader or service provider must give assurance regarding their products or services and hence the judgement.
