The complainant’s case in brief is that the OP Company is carrying out a business of dry cleaning and laundry having its various branches at Siliguri and that on 05.01.2014 the complainant had handed over two expensive sarees for dry clinic to the OP No.1 which is the branch of OP No. 2 and acting as a collection agent of OP No.2.  Out of two sarees one is Dhakai Jamdani worth Rs.10,250/- and another is silk saree worth Rs.8,700/-.  At the time of receiving two sarees the OP No.1 after thorough examination got convinced that those were not defective.  Accordingly on that date 05.08.2014 received the same after issuing a laundry/dry clean bill vide No.5686 for an amount of Rs.220/- and told the complainant to take the delivery of the same on 14.08.2016 and this complainant is a bonafide consumer within the meaning of the Act, 1986.  On 14.08.2014 the complainant had been to the shop of the OP No1 to receive two sarees but in utter shock and surprise she found that one of her sarees, Dhakai Jamdani was in damaged condition.  On being asked the concerned person of

OP No.1 started misbehaving and arguing with the complainant and while other customers came there in that shop realizing the situating said representative of OP No.1 said that saree has been damaged due to negligence dry wash and there was nothing to do on their part.  OP No.1 told the complainant that she had to receive the saree in that damaged condition.  The complainant asked them to deliver her another saree i.e., silk saree which was in proper condition but surprisingly the OP No.1 refused to return the same on the pretext that the complainant had to receive both the sarees otherwise she could not get back her another one.  Ultimately, the OPs did not return the sarees to the complainant till the date of filing of this case.  It is further contended in the petition of complaint that the cause of action of this case arose on 14.08.2014 at Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling when the OP damaged the saree of the complainant and the claim of the complainant was repudiated illegally and when the OP Nos.1 & 2 had proved to be worthless in providing a reasonable diligent service to its customer.  Hence, this case with a prayer directing the OP Nos.1 & 2 to pay refund of the amount of the sarees to the tune of Rs.18,950/- and another sum of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed for immense mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant and thereafter in addition to this another sum of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service and lastly an amount of Rs.15,000/- is prayed for as litigation cost. 

The complainant at the time of filing of this case has filed the laundry/dry clean bill being no.5686 dated 05.08.2014 with delivery date 14.08.2014.  The cash memo shows the name of Pampa Dresses, Kolkata which is meant for value of the said two sarees.  A copy of letter of the complainant is also filed addressed to Officer-In-Charge, Consumer Forum, Siliguri, Darjeeling and the fourth document is addressed to the Administrator, Hygiene Care, Netaji More, Subhaspally, Siliguri, Darjeeling from complainant. 

The OPs appeared in this case by filing vakalatnama and filed written version against the complaint stating therein that when the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 for receiving the sarees, the Manager of OP No.2 informed the complainant that the workshop inspection Manager denied services for the said Dhakai Jamdani saree because of the fissure present on the saree but after listening the same the complainant kept on pursuing the OP No.2 to dry clean the said Dhakai Jamdani to which OP No.2 refused and OP No.2 several times thereafter requested the complainant to take back the goods or sarees but the complainant was quite arrogant to refuse the request of the OP No.2 and the OPs are still willing and ready to deliver the goods sarees lying in their custody.

Complainant in support of her case has furnished her evidence in writing along with an affidavit by which the case of the complainant has been corroborated.  On the other hand one Mita Mazumder said to be the husband of Arup Mazumder, one of the partners of the OP No.1 firm has given her evidence in writing with an affidavit supporting the written version as filed by the OPs.  It is to be noted here that complainant has also submitted the mentioned four documents in original also.  Both the complainant and the OP side have also submitted their respective written notes on argument as per order of this Forum.

Points for determination

1)       Is the case maintainable in its present form and nature?

2)       Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?

3)       Is the complainant a consumer under the definition of the C.P. Act, 1986?

4)       Is there any deficiency in service from the part of the OPs in this case?

5)       Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

All the points are taken up together for consideration as those are interrelated.

It is found from the case record that the instant case is well under territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction as per Provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The instant case has been registered before this Forum on 27.07.2016 while the cause of action arose on 05.08.2014.  So, there is no hesitation to hold that the case has been filed within stipulated period of limitation. 

From the documents as filed the complainant it is palpably clear that OP Absolute Hygiene Care received two sarees one Jamdani and second silk saree from the complainant on 05.08.2014 for the purpose of laundry/dry clean through Bill Memo No.5686 where the date of delivery is mentioned as on 14.08.2014 and it is also clear from the bill that for that purpose an amount of Rs.220/- has been written as dry cleaning charge.  It is admitted by the OPs that those goods/sarees were received by them for the purpose of dry clean but a note of ‘Fissure’ has been there beneath the noting of Jamdani in that bill.  During argument ld advocate for the OPs emphasized upon the term ‘Fissure’ repeatedly and submitted that ‘Fissure’ means a long narrow opening or line breakage made by cracking or splitting which is a state of incompatibility or disagreement, split or crack to form a long narrow opening.  Ld advocate on behalf of the complainant argued that the Dhakai Jamdani saree which has been made damaged by the OPs through their dry cleaning was not at all with any defect but due to negligent dry cleaning that has so been damaged and for that purpose the complainant did not take return of the same and the OPs on the plea of not taking the damaged Jamdani saree also did not return the silk saree to the complainant.  From the explanation of ‘Fissure’ as made in the written argument this Forum is of the view that the same is not at all a satisfactory ground for getting the Jamdani saree damaged and if that apprehension of damage was there then it was the duty of the OPs not to take the saree for dry cleaning from the complainant but fact remains that those was accepted by the OPs for dry cleaning purpose.  There is no doubt in it that the complainant’s status herein this case is nothing but a consumer as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and at the same time by virtue of documents filed by the complainant we have further no hesitation to hold that there is a clear deficiency in service occurred in the part of the OPs against the consumer-complainant.  Thus this case is well maintainable in this Forum and the matter of deficiency in service against the complainant by the OPs has also been established by which it can be safely said that complainant is entitled to get relief.  The points as mentioned above are disposed of in favour of the complainant. 

Proper fees paid.

Hence, it is,

                    O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.74/S/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed in part on contest with cost. 

The OP Nos.1 & 2 are hereby directed to pay refund of the amount of sarees to the tune of Rs.18,950/- and both the OPs are severally and jointly liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation as against mental harassment and agony as well as for negligence and deficiency in service to the complainant.  The OPs are also directed to pay a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant totalling a sum of Rs. 33,950/- (Thirty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty only) within 45 days from the date of this order. 

Failing which as against amount of Rs.18,950/- will carry interest @ 9% per annum till full realization of the said mentioned amount.

The complainant is at liberty to put the order in execution.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to each of the parties free of cost at once.