Haryana

Karnal

235/2014

Prerna kwatra W/o Ashok Kwatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bedi Sona Dyasar & Daryi clinic - Opp.Party(s)

26 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.235 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt.25.08.2014

                                                               Date of decision:  08.06.2015

 

Prerna Kwatra wife of Sh.Ashok Kwatra resident of house No.20-G, Block C, Pine Home, Zirakpur Dakholi District Mohalli (New Address House no.1079, Sector -9, Karnal.)

 

                                                                   ………Complainant.

                   Versus

Bedi Sons  Dyers and Dry Cleaners, 91-B, Netaji Subhash Market, Karnal.                                                                              

                                                                            ………Opposite Party.

                   Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma….Member.                

 

 Present        Smt.Prerna Kwatra , complainant in person.

                   Sh.B.S.Bedi Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER:

 

 

                    This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that on 5.2.2014 she had given two costly suits to the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) for the purpose of dry cleaning which after dry cleaning were to be delivered  to her after fifteen days. It has further been alleged that after fifteen days when she went to the premises of the OP for taking her suits, the person to whom  she had  given the suits was not found present there and some other person was  present and he told her that due to rush of work, the suits could  not be dry- cleaned and asked her to visit after few days.  Again, when she went to the shop of the OP for taking suits, the person found sitting there expressed his ignorance   about her suits and asked her to contact the concerned person  to whom she had given the suits but the concerned   person was not available there on that day.   Thereafter, she visited the shop of the OP a number of times, but the person who was found present there put her off on one pretext or the other.  Ultimately, on 16.6.2014 she went to the shop of the OP alongwith her husband and there concerned person  was found present and after searching he gave both the suits to her,  but on  checking she found that one suit was badly damaged and the colour of the same had faded.  When she lodged protest, he insulted her, due to which she felt great shock and refused to take that suit.   It has also been alleged that on account of damage to her suit by the OP, she has suffered mental harassment. She has claimed  value of the suit apart from Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation for her mental agony and the   expenses incurred in the litigation.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed written statement controverting  the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised  that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is false, frivolous and baseless   and the same has been filed with dishonest intention to  harass and humiliate the OP and to extort money from him.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant had given only two lady’s shirts for dry cleaning and that too on 22.2.2014 and not on 5.2.2014 as alleged in the complaint.  The complainant did not turn up after fifteen days.  The allegations regarding her repeated visits to the shop of the OP for taking her suits has been specifically denied. It has further been submitted that on 16.6.2014 the complainant came to the shop of the OP and received one shirt and she told that the second shirt was not properly dry cleaned and asked  him to dry clean the same again.  After two days she came to the shop and received the second shirt in a satisfactory condition. It has been specifically denied that shirt of the complainant was damaged by the OP.

 

3.                 The complainant in support of her allegations filed her affidavit  Ex.C1 and produced documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5.

 

4.                 On the other hand, the OP  Bunty Bedi filed his affidavit Ex.O1.

 

5.                 We have heard the  complainant and Learned  counsel for the OP and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                 The complainant  alleged that she gave two  lady’s suits to OP for the purpose of dry cleaning but as per copy of receipt issued by the OP Ex.C2, two lady’s shirts were given by the complainant. Even during course of arguments, the complainant has not disputed the fact that she had given only two lady’s shirts to the OP for dry cleaning and Salwars and dupattas of the same were not given by her.   Even Ex.C3 shows that she had taken one shirt from the OP on 16.6.2014 and refused to take the delivery of the another shirt on the ground that the  black embroidery  of the same was damaged.  Thus,  it is clear  that  complainant had given only  two lady’s shirts for dry cleaning. In the complaint the date of giving  shirts by the complainant to the OP  has been mentioned as 5.2.2014, but the receipt issued by the OP indicates that she had given shirts on 22.2.2014.The complainant in her affidavit Ex.C1 mentioned date of giving two shirts to the OP as 22.2.2014.  In this way, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant had given two lady’s  shirts to OP on 22.2.2014 for the purpose of dry cleaning. She had taken delivery of one shirt only  on  16.6.2014 and refused to take delivery of the another shirt as the embroidery of the same was damaged.

 

7.                 It is also admitted fact that after few days, the complainant had taken delivery of the second shirt also. At the time of arguments, she brought that shirt and got  compared the black colour on the dupatta with the embroidery on the shirt. The black colour on the dupatta did not match with the embroidery on the shirt, which indicated that black colour of embroidery on the shirt had actually faded on account of dry cleaning. The complainant had even given a noting Ex.C3 on the back of the receipt Ex.C2 that embroidery on the said  shirt was damaged. It is not the case of the OP that colour of the embroidery was already in faded condition when the shirt was given to him for dry cleaning. The complainant had admitted that after some days she had taken delivery of the damaged shirt also, but there is no material on record which may show that she had taken the delivery after satisfying herself about the condition of the shirt.  In this way, it stands established from the facts and circumstances of the case that one lady’s shirt   given by the complainant to the OP for dry cleaning was damaged as  black colour of the embroidery  on the same had faded. Consequently, there was deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

         

8.                 The complainant has produced copy of the bill Ex.C4 regarding purchase of one suit for Rs.10,000/- on 5.2.2014 from  Aksh Boutique, Mani Majra, Chandigarh.  No doubt, name of the complainant has not been mentioned on the bill, but  that can  not be a ground  to disbelieve the version of the complainant that one suit was purchased by her vide said bill. It is admitted fact that suit included lady’s shirt, Salwar land dupatta. The complainant had not given Salwar and dupatta to the OP for dry cleaning and she had only given  the shirt. Therefore, it would be reasonable to consider the value of the shirt as Rs.7000/-. This fact also can not be ignored that the complainant on account of fading away the colour of embroidery of her shirt  and not compensating for the same by the OP, must have suffered some mental harassment and agony.

 

9.                 As  a sequel to  the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.7000/- to the complainant on account of damages caused to her shirt alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/- for the harassment caused to her and towards litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The   parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:08.06.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

         

 

 

                      Prerna Kwatra Versus Bedi Sons.

 

Present         Smt.Prerna Kwatra , complainant in person.

                   Sh.B.S.Bedi Advocate  with Sh.Bunty Bedi OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to  8.6.2015.

Announced
dated:04.06.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

Present         Smt.Prerna Kwatra , complainant in person.

                   Sh.B.S.Bedi Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly land the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:08.06.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.