West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/148/2014

Santimony Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amal Chandra Jana - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.148/2014                                                                                           Date of disposal: 20 /03/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.  S. K. Jana, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                        : Mr. R.K.Sarkar, Advocate.                                   

          

 Santimoy Roy, S/O Rakhari Roy, at Joypur SC, ST & BC High School, P.O.-Mahatabpur, P.S.Salbani, Dist. Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)Amal Chandra Jana, Propritor of Janar Godown, Near Barabazar Chawk, Midnpore Town, P.O.Midnapore, P.S.Kotwali, Dist. Paschim Medinipur;

2)The Manager, Peasons Knitwears (Regd.), Ludhiana.141008, Phone-0161-2741564(O), Mob.09216152519;

3)The Manager, Jain Daolot Hosiary, 161, M.G. Road, Easter Plaza, 4^th Floor, Room No.426, Phone. 033-22701947, Kol.700007, ..……………Ops.

 

Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

 

            The Op. No.l is the owner of a shop named and styled Janar Godown and the said shop is continuing its business till now and Op. No.2 & 3 are the manufacturer of the sweater which is sold by the Op. No.-l and the petitioner purchased the sweater from the Op. No.l and the shop keeper stated that this was the sweater of Cezari  Company. That on 15/11/13 the Complainant Obtained Petitioner went to the shop of the Op. No.l named and styled Janar Godown and placed. So many sweaters infront of the petitioner and the Op. No.l stated and made as assurance that this sweater manufactured by the reputed company Cezari and it was R mark with guaranteed and sold it towards the petitioner taking cash amounting of Rs.900 and issued a tax

Contd…………..P/2

 

-( 2 )-

invoice vide Receipt No-120 against the Sweater Rs.900/- (Cash)  That on 15/11/13 the complainant/petitioner went to the shop of the Op. No.l, named and styled  Janar Godown   at Barabazar, Midnapore for purchasing a sweater and the Op. No.l placed so many sweaters in front of the petitioner and Op. No.l stated and made assurance that this sweater manufactured by the reputed company Cezari  and it was R mark with guarantied and the same sold it towards this petitioner taking a cash amounting of Rs.900/-  and issued a tax in invoice vide Receipt No.120 against the sweater. At the time of selling of the said sweater, it was tagged with a card named and tyled Cezari Mens Fashion, style 249 Size.P, Price.915, MFD by PEESONS KNITWEARS CREGO), Ludhiana, 141008 Phone No. (0)0161 2741564, 2741946, (M) 09216152539. That the petitioner used the said sweater only at the official time and he used to wear carefully as it was furry and costly. That other one month, the petitioner observed that the sweater became loosen and furry portions automatically removed from the sweater and it became useless. That on 03/02/14 the petitioner reached at the shop of the Op. No.l and narrated all the facts and claimed to change the said sweater or return the said payment amounting of Rs.900/- and the Op. No.1 did not agree with the said proposal and thiswas not his responsibility rather the manufacturing company is liable for such consequences. Then this petitioner called the company with their phone numbers and they stated that they have a branch office at Kolkata. That on 21/03/14 this petitioner complained before The Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and their Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur Regional Office and the said department heard the both sides and refers to Ld. Forum for praying justice. That on 29/09/14 again this petitioner sent a demand notices to the Ops. through registered Post Op No.1 received the same and replied by same process denying all facts and the letter of Op No.2 returned with Incomplete Address and the letter of the Op No.3 also returned with unclaimed. That this petitioner is the Consumer of all the Ops. and all of them are fully responsible to such deficiency in service and they are making fraudulent practice of business or trade. The Op. contested the case by filling W/O challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and jurisdiction.  The complaint under reply is not maintainable in law in its present form and prayer. The complaint under reply is false fraudulent baseless and fabricated and filed the same is a test case. The complaint has measurably failed to make out any case of deficiency in service and as such the complaint under reply has not came under the preview of the act.

                The contents of the compliant in regard to the purchase of sweater for Rs.900/- on 15.11.2013 by the complaint from the op. no. 1 is not denied. But it is false to state that the petitioner used the said sweater only at the official time or wearied carefully being the same furry or costly or that after one month the petitioner observed that the sweater became loosen or furry

Contd…………..P/3

 

 

-( 3 )-

portions automatically removed from the sweater or that it became useless or that on 3.2.2014 the petitioner approached the Op. no.l claiming change of the sweater and return the money or that the Op. 1 did not agreed the same or  told that this was not his responsibility rather the manufacturing company is liable for the same as alleged. It is not admitted that the petitioner called the company. It is true that the petitioner previously complained before the Assistant Director Consumer affairs Paschim Medinipur Regional office and the both side was heard. But it is not admitted that the said department referred the matter to the Ld. Forum. As the matter was not amicably settled, the said department asked the complaint to more move the matter in the DCDRF Paschim Medinipur. The petitioner served demand notice dated 29.9.2014 and the Op. no.l has replied the same to him through the Ld. Lawyer Sri Ranjan Kumar Sarkar Advocate denying the claim of the petitioner.  Op submits that there was is no deficiency in service as alleged. This op sold the sweater in dispute to the petitioner and he having been satisfied in respect of the filing and quality of the sweeter purchased the same on 15.11.13. And after taking delivery of the sweater he went away. Thereafter at the end of winter after using the sweater roughly the complaint on 21.3.2014 lodged complain in respect of the defects of goods/deficiency in service and prayed for redressal and on the date of hearing before the Asst. Director consumer affairs Regional office Midnapore he admitted that he washed the sweater and kept the same is hanging position to up in the sunlight. The sweater normally should not complainant mishandled the sweater at the time of washing the same. As the sweater is the woolen product it has normally become lengthy in length. So it is the fault of the complaint to handle the woolen product carefully by hanging in the same today up and consequently the size of the sweater has became lengthily. And in such case this op has no fault or deficiency in service in the matter.

 

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable for want of cause of action ?
2. Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction ?
3. Whether the Op. is liable for deficiency of service ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting compensation as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

           All the issues are taken up for together for discussion as those are inter linked each other for the purpose of arising at a correct decision in this disputes.

            The Op. No.l is the owner of a shop named and styled Janar Godown and the said shop is continuing its business till now and Op. No.2 & 3 are the manufacturer of the sweater which is sold by the Op. No.l and the petitioner purchased the sweater from the Op. No.1 and the shop

Contd…………..P/4

 

 

-( 4 )-

keeper stated that this was the sweater of Cezari  Company. That on 15/11/13 the Complainant Obtained Petitioner went to the shop of the Op. No.l named and styled Janar Godown and placed. So many sweaters infront of the petitioner and the Op. No.l stated and made as assurance that this sweater manufactured by the reputed company Cezari and it was R mark with guaranteed and sold it towards the petitioner taking cash amounting of Rs.900 and issued a tax invoice vide Receipt No-120 against the Sweater. Amount paid as consideration Rs. 900/- (cash).

That on 15/11/13 the complainant/petitioner went to the shop of the Op. No.l, named and styled Janar Godown at Barabazar, Midnapore for purchasing a sweater and the Op. No.l placed so many sweaters in front of the petitioner and Op. No.l stated and made assurance that this sweater manufactured by the reputed company Cezari  and it was R mark with guarantied and the same sold it towards this petitioner taking a cash amounting of Rs.900/-  and issued a tax in invoice vide Receipt No.120 against the sweater. At the time of selling of the said sweater, it was tagged with a card named and styled Cezari Mens Fashion, style.249 Size.P, Price.915, MFD by PEESONS KNITWEARS CREGO), Ludhiana, 141008 Phone No (0)0161 2741564,2741946, (M)09216152539.

                The contents of the compliant in regard to the purchase of sweater for Rs.900/- on 15.11.2013 by the complaint from the op. no. 1 is not denied. But it is false to state that the petitioner used the said sweater only at the official time or wearied carefully being the same furry or costly or that after one month the petitioner observed that the sweater became loosen or furry portions automatically removed from the sweater or that it became useless or that on 3.2.2014 the petitioner approached the Op. No. l claiming change of the sweater and return the money or that the Op. No. 1 did not agreed the same or  told that this was not his responsibility rather the manufacturing company is liable for the same as alleged. It is not admitted that the petitioner called the company. It is true that the petitioner previously complained before the Assistant Director Consumer affairs Paschim Medinipur Regional office and the both side were heard. But it is not admitted that the said department referred the matter to the Ld. Forum. As the matter was not amicably settled, the said department asked the complaint to move the matter in the DCDRF Paschim Medinipur.

       In view of the above it is held and decided that the Op. is liable for deficiency of service as alleged by the Complainant. So the Complainant has come of action to seek the relief in terms of the prayer mention in the petition of complaint.

                 In view of the above all issues are accordingly disposed of in favour of the Complainant.

  Contd…………..P/5

 

 

 

-( 5 )-            

 

                   Hence,

                               it is ordered that

                                                          the Complainant do get payment of Rs. 900/- (Nine hundred) only as cost of the sweater litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Five hundred) only and compensation Rs.1,000/-(One thousand) only  payable by the Op. no.1 within 60 days from the date of order in default Complainant is liberty to proceed the matter before the Forum in accordance of the provision  of law in this behalf.

               Copy of order supplied free of cost.         

                                        

Dictated & Corrected by me

             

           Member                                       Member                                          President

                                                                                                                      District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur.