DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

                                        ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/205/2016

No. DF/ Central/                                                                      Date

Ms. Nayab Rani

R/O 1749, Gali Meer Jumla, Lal Kuan

Delhi-110006.                                                                           …..COMPLAINANT  

 VERSUS

Ms. Aparna Chandna & Ms. Aradhana Chandna

56/6, Old Rajender Nagar, near Syndicate Bank,

New Delhi-110060.                                                                     …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                 Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1.       Instant complaint was filed by Ms. Nayab Rani (in short complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that on 18.12.2015, she handed over one piece of cloth measuring 6 meters worth Rs, 3,500/- for sewing her suit to Ms. Aparna Chandna & Ms. Aradhana Chandna (in short OPs).  OPs assured that they would hand over the stitched suit after two weeks and the stitching charges were Rs. 1,100/-.  The complainant demanded receipt from the OP but the OP did not issue the same stating that as per their policy and practice no separate receipt is issued.  However, an entry was made in this regard in the register maintained by OPs. On 10.02.2016, the complainant visited the office of OPs to take delivery of the stitched suit.  The complainant was surprised to note that “the stitched suit was looking clumsy due to three unusual and unwarranted joined pieces of clothes.  There were several unnecessary joined clothes in the suit which had spoilt the look, glamour and elegance of the suit.”  She requested the OPs to make the necessary alterations in the suit.  However, instead of doing the needful, they misbehaved with the complainant and insisted on payment of extra money stating that they would require extra cloth for doing the alteration in the suit.  They also stated that neither the suit would be returned nor alterations would be made without making the payment of Rs. 500/-.  Complainant called the police.  Sh. Manjit, HC arrived at the spot.  He advised the complainant to file a complaint.  Complainant issued notice to OP dated 18.03.2016 but OPs did not pay any heed to the notice.  Hence, the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to handover the stitched suit in proper condition without demanding any extra charge; a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.        OPs have contested the claim vide reply.  It is denied that complainant approached OPs on 18.12.2015 or handed over a cloth piece measuring 6 meters for stitching her suit.  It is stated that alleged piece of cloth was never handed over to the OPs.  It is also stated that as per practice while taking piece of any cloth, acknowledgement receipt is issued by the OPs to the customer, which is shown at the time of delivery when the final bill is issued to the customer.  It is alleged that the complainant has neither shown the booking receipt nor the final bill and that the present case has been filed to extort money from the OPs.         

3.        We have heard complainant in person and Ms. Vanshika, learned counsel for OPs.  Parties filed evidence by way of affidavits.

4.        Complainant was present today.  We asked her as to whether she had any documents of handing over a cloth piece measuring 6 meters to the OPs for stitching her suit.  Complainant stated that no such receipt was issued by the OPs.

5.        OPs vehemently denied that any cloth piece was handed over to them by the complainant for stitching her suit.  Onus is on the complainant to prove that cloth piece was handed over to the OPs for stitching her suit.  Ordinarily when a cloth piece is handed over to a tailor for stitching purpose, a receipt is issued in acknowledgement of having received the cloth piece for stitching purpose.  Any person of ordinary prudence would insist upon issuance of acknowledgment receipt before handing over a cloth piece to the tailor for stitching.  If no such acknowledgement receipt is obtained by the customer from the tailor before handing over a cloth piece, the tailor would not be able to identify as to which cloth piece was handed over by which customer and for which purpose nor the customer would be left with any proof that he handed over the cloth piece to the tailor.  In absence of any document in the nature of acknowledgement receipt or bill it is difficult to believe the complainant that she handed over a cloth piece to the OPs for stitching her suit which was allegedly spoilt by the OPs.

6.       The complaint is accordingly dismissed. Copy of the same be retained on record. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

Announced this            Day of                       2018.