DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _294_ OF ___2015_
DATE OF FILING : 22.6.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 05/04/2017
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Flat no.1B, Anubhav Apartment, 40D, South End Park, Kolkata – 29.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Ms. Malhotra (Member of Malhotra Group), Bank Box Dry Cleaners and Laundries, 8C, Alipore Road, Woodlands, Kolkata – 27
2. Manager, Bank Box Dry Cleaners and Laundries, 22, Gariahat Road,(Golpark), Kolkata – 29.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President
The application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant for redressal of the grievances as set out in the complaint.
It is the short case of the complainant that she claims herself as a regular customer of Bank Box Dry Cleaners and Laundries which are known as O.Ps. It has further stated that on 28th February, 2015 complainant had given one Saree for dry-cleaning to the O.P-2 vide cash memo number 67386 along with other clothes and linen items as mentioned in the Cash Memo. The cash memo is annexed as annexure A. It has alleged that at the time of delivery of the said items complainant noticed that the colour of the Saree, which was cream georgette with a border of orange, yellow and orange silk with embroidery of zari motis, was retu5rned completely damaged as white in colour with complete discoloration of the border and zari cord all over has turned black. It is the further case of the complainant that apart from the monetary value the said saree has great deal of emotional significance for the complainant as the same was gifted to her by her husband on their anniversary. It is the further case of the complainant that when the complainant raised the issued with the Manager of the O.Ps, it was casually told to the complainant that instead of dry cleaning the saree might have been bleached which resulted in complete discoloration and O.Ps also assured that they would fix up the problem and return the saree within 7 days in its original condition. Accordingly complainant handed over the saree to the O.Ps for rectification and taken delivery of remaining items. But the said saree was not returned to the complainant who has made follow up visit to the shop and then instead of returning the saree the O.Ps fixed up one meeting with Ms Malhotra (Head of Franchisee) at their Gariahat office and at the meeting the O.Ps accepted their fault and instructed one of their Karaigar to get the said saree in question in its original colour and shape. During the meeting the O.P-1 also asked about the value of the saree which was intimated to her by the complainant as Rs.7000/-. The complainant was shocked when O.P-1 handed over one sheet containing the terms and conditions and offered 10 times as cleaning charges i.e. Rs.800/- as per clause 8 of the terms and conditions. The copy of the terms and conditions is enclosed as annexure 2. It has claimed by the complainant that the terms and conditions are arbitrary and was never explained to the complainant at the time of handing over the cloths and the said terms and conditions is against the principle of natural justice. Accordingly complainant refused to accept Rs.800/- as compensation against the value of Rs.7000/- of the said Saree in question and O.P kept the Saree with an assurance to get it rectified within 7 days. Thereafter complainant at about two months regularly followed up the matter over phone call which was ignored by the O.Ps and thereafter written letter dated 13th May, 2015 to the O.Ps by registered post was sent but no reply is received, a copy of which is also annexed as annexure 3. Thereafter complainant has written email on 4th June, 2015 for redressal of her grievance but the O.Ps had not given reply. Thus the conduct of the O.Ps is clearly deficiency in service and they have damaged the saree in question which is still in their possession. Hence, this case praying for refund of Rs.7000/- , compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, humiliation, acute mental pain, agony suffered by the complainant on account of willful conduct, malafide intentions and ulterior motive of the O.Ps, cost of Rs.11000/- etc.
The O.Ps contested the case by filing written version and denied all the allegations claiming that the case is not maintainable . The O.P has admitted that complainant is a long time regular customer. So, the O.Ps did not like to loose this type of customer as the O.Ps very well-known and reputed business group. It has further claimed that other items of clothes are already handed over to the complainant. But only the Saree is damaged as it is old one and the complainant not paid the bill amount for the other cloths to the O.Ps, though the complainant took all the cloths items except saree. It has further stated by the O.Ps that moreover, once colour bleached it could not be possible to return its in original condition. It has claimed that complainant is a regular and old customer and she is well aware regarding the terms and conditions mentioned in the bill provided by the O.Ps to the complainant and O.Ps admitted that as per terms and conditions the O.Ps offered the complainant 10 times value of cleaning charges and the O.Ps are binding by the terms and conditions prescribed in the bill. But it has been claimed by the O.Ps that complainant has threatened the O.Ps that they will hamper the reputation of the O.Ps. In this circumstances this complaint is vexatious, false ,frivolous and baseless and required to be dismissed.
Points for decision in this case is, whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.
Decision with reasons
Admittedly complainant is a regular customer of the O.Ps . So, the contention of the O.Ps is that complainant was well aware regarding the terms and conditions of the bill of the O.Ps ,which is categorically mentioned in the backside of the original bill.
It is true that O.Ps stoutly admitted that the saree in dispute was damaged but not willfully. It has been stated on that score that O.Ps refused to accept the said saree due to its oldness and request the complainant to take back it, but the complainant being a relative of the O.P-1 forced me to take it for dry wash and at that time O.Ps also informed the complainant that the saree may be damaged during dry wash as it is very old one. This part of answer mentioned in 2(l) of the reply to question no.12 is partly accepted and partly not, since nothing has been mentioned in the said bill dated 28.2.2015 in respect of the said saree, the cost of dry wash was assessed Rs.80/- herein complainant put her signature and mobile phone number. It has mentioned in the said bill that “All business is accepted subject to the terms and conditions printed overleaf”. So, complainant being an educated lady puts her signature in English language and when she was asked to appear before this Bench for identification of the saree, she used to speak in English. Apart from that, it has mentioned in the first page of the bill in a red printing “We have no guarantee for any branded garments for colour running”.
Perused the terms and conditions in the overleaf of the bill and we find that in point no.8 it ahs mentioned that in case of damage, misplacement or lost or the goods/articles from the custody of the O.Ps or from the sub-contractor’s custody, the company is liable to pay the amount of compensation towards damage equivalent to the maximum 10 TIMES of the cleaning charges of the said damage and/or lost goods/articles. It is well-known to us that terms and conditions are binding upon the parties . So, herein in the present case the point no.8 is applicable and complainant has accepted that condition as an admittedly old customer. Moreover, it can be said that the small printing of condition of acceptance were not visible , but that cannot be accepted . It is not the first visit of the complainant. Admittedly he claims herself as a regular customer of Band Box. So, she is aware of these terms and conditions of cleaning garments and while she accepted the terms and conditions, she cannot raise her finger for more compensation. Here ,she has claimed Rs.50,000/- ,particularly when the dry wash is Rs.80/- only. Apart from that, it appears from the said bill that full payment is due and total washing charges was Rs.620/- and it is not the case of the complainant that she did not get the other items.
Be that as it may, we find that complainant has been able to prove that her saree was damaged at the time of dry washing and O.Ps should not bleach the same which they have stated in the written version at para 8 stated above, that is why, the colour of the said saree was fade. However, it was also the duty of the O.Ps to mention all these things at the time of issuing the bill regarding the old age of the saree but nothing has been mentioned. So, the plea of the O.Ps cannot be accepted.
Now the question is , complainant has claimed Rs.7000/- towards the cost of the saree. But complainant did not submit single document towards the value of the goods/herein saree. Moreover, she did not take any attempt to prove the same regarding the cost of the said saree or similar type of saree through the manufacturer by filing a petition in the earlier stage. Hence, the prayer for refund of Rs.7000/- cannot be accepted.
Now the question is what would be the amount of compensation. Here, the complainant has claimed Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, humiliation, acute mental pain, agony suffered by the complainant on account of willful conduct, malafide intentions and ulterior motive of the O.Ps But when it has come to this Bench for redressal, we have to consider further-more regarding assessment of compensation i.e sentiment of the lady complainant, harassment, humiliation, mental agony etc. because it is the case of the complainant that the said saree was a gift from her husband on their anniversary. We pray to god that anniversary comes long years together ,so that complainant may get similar opportunity from her husband. But emotional significant with the said saree cannot be brushed aside ,for which taking into consideration all these pros and cons and emotion, humiliation of the complainant, it would be just and proper to award compensation Rs.2500/- ,considering the value claimed by the complainant ,because compensation amount cannot be settled more than the value of the goods. Although complainant failed to prove the value of the goods i.e. Rs.7000/-, but she has claimed through affidavit that it is Rs.7000/-. Thus taking into consideration all these things more than one third amount of the goods be settled as compensation. Apart from that O.Ps retuned other items without accepting any money of the said bill of Rs.620/-. Thus complainant will get benefit of that also i.e. Rs.540/-. It is well-known to us that the procedure of the Forum is a cheaper one. So, litigation cost should be Rs.2000/-.
Thus the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service of the O.Ps since admittedly the goods(saree) is damaged due to bleach but it was given for dry wash.
Accordingly, it is
Ordered
The complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost.
That the O.Ps are hereby directed jointly and/or severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2500/- on account of harassment, humiliation, acute mental pain, agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs. 2000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which 9% interest will be charged on the decreetal dues from the date of default till its realization.
The prayer of the complainant to refund the value of the saree i.e Rs.7000/- is refused as complainant has failed to prove the same ,although onus is upon the complainant to prove the same by p.roducing any documentary evidence.
Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the statutory period is over.
Complainant is also directed to take back the saree from the office and keep it in the almirah as a Souvenir/memory on proper receipt. Office is directed to hand over the saree on proper receipt as it where basis.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
The complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost.
That the O.Ps are hereby directed jointly and/or severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2500/- on account of harassment, humiliation, acute mental pain, agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs. 2000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which 9% interest will be charged on the decreetal dues from the date of default till its realization.
The prayer of the complainant to refund the value of the saree i.e Rs.7000/- is refused as complainant has failed to prove the same ,although onus is upon the complainant to prove the same
Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the statutory period is over.
Complainant is also directed to take back the saree from the O.Ps and keep in the almirah as a Souvenir/memory on proper receipt.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member President
