Burqa showroom asked to pay compensation to aggrieved customer

December 28, 2011

Mangalore, December 28: The Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has asked a burqa showroom in the city to pay a compensation of Rs 6,000 including litigation costs, to a customer for replacing a costly burqu material given for stitching with a substandard one.

Ayisha Gulzar (23) of Someshwar, Ullal, had lodged a complaint against the Paradise Burqa House located at Kunil Centre in the city, alleging if of deceiving her.

She had handed over the material gifted by her brother, to the burqa house for stitching in October 2010. The burqa house had promised to deliver the stitched burqa on November4. When she returned to the showroom-cum-stitching centre, the burqa was not ready. She was asked to collect it on November 15. On the following say, Aysha received the burqa from the showroom to discover that the material was different.

Refusing to accept the delivery, she insisted that she wanted the imported material handed over by her. However, the showroom insisted that there had been mix-up with the materials and she had to collect the burqa stitched from sub-standard material.

The aggrieved customer had then approached the Forum demanding a compensation of Rs 16, 000.

Countering her charges, the Paradise Burkha House claimed that Aysha had failed to collect the stitched burqa on the due date. She had visited the showroom on November 15 to collect the stitched burqa, but left on the pretext of not having sufficient money to pay for the burqa and never turned up. The Paradise Burkha House deposing before the Forum sought the dismissal of case as there was no mix-up of materials and the burqa was stitched to specific requirements with the material given by the complainant.

However, on scrutiny of evidences, the Forum observed that a sample of the material tagged with receipt differed with the stitched material submitted before the Forum.

The material attached to slip was thicker than the stitched material displayed by the showroom, the Forum stressed and dismissed arguments that the burqa was not stitched from the material given by Aysha.

Forum President Asha Shetty also stressed that it was the bounden duty to take care of the materials given by customers.

Taking into the cost of material and the inconvenience caused, The Forum directed the Paradise Burqa House to pay a compensation of Rs 6, 000 including litigation expenses within a month.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

HC refuses to quash probe against Mangaluru WhatsApp admin over offensive posts

News Network

February 1,2026

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.

Comments