Delhi

East Delhi

CC/448/2017

PINKI - Complainant(s)

Versus

AARAV CREATION - Opp.Party(s)

16 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 448/17

 

Pinki @ Sudha Devi

W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar

816, 3^rd Floor, Guru Ram Dass Nagar Extension

Near Ramesh Park Gurudwara

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi

Through Authorized Representative

Shri Rakesh Kumar                                                                    ….Complainant

 

Vs.     

 

Aarav Creations

K-5, Opp. State Bank of India

Main Bazar, Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi – 110 092

Through its Proprietor                                                                    ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 30.10.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 16.10.2018

Judgement Passed on: 25.10.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, authorized representative of Ms. Pinki @ Sudha Devi, against M/s. Aarav Creations (OP) under Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that on 22.08.2017, the complainant purchased a salwar suit for an amount of Rs. 1,695/- from M/s. Aarav Creations (OP) for the occasion of Teej.  When the complainant reached home, she noticed that there was manufacturing defect in the embroidery i.e. missing of pattern.  She immediately visited the shop of OP.  It has been stated that OP showed another piece of salwar suit of the same type, but refused to replace the same with the defective one.  She was assured that the said salwar suit will be exchanged on some other day.  The complainant visited the shop of OP continuously for 8 days as instructed, but OP refused to exchange or returns the said suit.

            Aggrieved by the acts of OP, legal notice was issued on 11.09.2017 which was neither replied nor complied.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to  exchange the defective suit with another defect free suit; compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards personal loss, loss of reputation, goodwill, harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.  

            The complainant has annexed copy of authority letter, copy of receipt, photographs containing defect in suit, copy of legal notice and its postal receipt alongwith the complaint.

 3.        Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP.  Inspite of service, OP have not appeared, hence they were proceeded Ex-parte.

4.         In support of its case, AR of the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited the documents such as copy of authority letter (Ex.CW-1/A), copy of receipt (Ex.CW-1/B), copy of  photographs containing defect (Ex.CW-1/C), copy of legal notice and its postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/D)

5.         We have heard submissions on behalf of Authorized Representative of the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant has stated that the suit was purchased to be worn on the occasion of “Teej”, but the same being defective on account of missing embroidery pattern could not be used. 

            To support the averments of their complaint, AR of complainant has got exhibited photographs depicting the defect as Ex.CW-1/C, where it is clearly visible that the suit sold by OP was defective.  As, OP was ex-parte, the averments made against them have remain unrebutted, therefore, the complainant has successfully discharged the onus of proving unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we direct OP to exchange the defective suit with fresh one.             

            As the said suit was purchased to be worn on the occasion of “Teej”, OP has deprived the complainant from enjoyment of the same, due to which complainant has suffered mental pain and agony, therefore, they are also awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and pain.  We also award Rs. 1,500/- as litigation expenses.  This order be complied within a period of 30 days from the receipt of order.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President