DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB. 

 

Complaint Case No : CC/4/2023

Date of Institution : 06.01.2023

Date of Decision : 03.05.2024

Dr. Rohit Bansal aged about 45 years son of Dr. Roop Chand Bansal resident of Near Punjab State Electricity Board, Dhanaula, Tehsil and District Barnala, Pin-148105. 

                   …Complainant

Versus

Bombay Store, Surya Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Responsible Person/Authorized Signatory/Proprietor.

                …Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present: Sh. Chander Bansal Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Jagdish Rai Garg counsel for opposite party. 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2. Smt Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant namely Dr. Rohit Bansal has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Bombay Store, Ludhiana. (hereinafter referred as opposite party).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant had visited on showroom of the opposite party on 26.7.2022 for purchasing some readymade clothes to wear the same on marriage a function of his nephew. The complainant purchased one readymade shirt of Benign company of Rs. 2,195/-, one readymade shirt of Rs. 3,499/-, one waist coat of Rs. 3,499/- and one trouser of Vanquish company of Rs. 2,399/- from showroom of opposite party on 26.7.2022 totaling of Rs. 11,592/- and opposite party issued a bill No. 1564 to the complainant.  

3. It is further alleged that at the time of sale one sale man namely Mannu had attended the complainant on behalf of opposite party. He and opposite party promised to the complainant that there is guarantee of colour of the said readymade clothes. On 28.7.2022 when the complainant got washed white shirt of Benign company then the piping affixed on it leave its colour on the white shirt. The complainant sent pictures on whatsapp to the opposite party and opposite party asked the complainant to come again in the showroom. On 29.7.2022 when the complainant went to opposite party then the opposite party flatly refused to do anything. The complainant made request to opposite party to change the shirt but they did not bother the same, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 29.11.2022 through his counsel but the opposite party did not accede any request of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

1) The opposite party be directed to change the shirt of Benign company worth of Rs. 2,195/-.  

2) To pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of humiliation and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

4) Any other relief, which this Commission may deems fit. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party appeared and filed written reply in which they admitted that the complainant visited the showroom of the opposite party on 26.7.2022 and purchased different readymade garments. No purpose for which the goods were purchased was disclosed to the salesman namely Manu Gulati who attended the complainant. It is further submitted that the salesman Manu Gulati clearly told to the complainant that the items being purchased are not manufactured by the opposite party and as such there is no guarantee of the colour or shrinkage regarding the garments being purchased. He further advised the complainant to get the garments dry cleaned every time and advised against washing at home. A similar condition is also printed on the bill issued to the complainant which reads as under.-

(5) “We do not undertake to give any guarantee regarding fastness of colour and durability and shrinkage of garments.”

(6) “No guarantee of pilling especially in woollen garments.”

As per averments in the complaint the complainant got the shirt washed with washing detergent at home as such there is possibility of leaving the colour of the piping on the white portion of the shirt. On receiving the photo of the shirt Sh. Sameer Thapar Store Manager called the complainant and requested him to bring the shirt so that the matter could be brought to the notice of the manufacturer, to do something, inspite of the fact that complainant had got washed the shirt at home with a detergent against the washing instructions. It is admitted that on 29.7.2022 the complainant visited the store. The complainant was fully explained by the Store Manager Sameer Thapar that the complainant should not have got the shirt washed at home with a washing detergent as there is no guarantee of the detergent having been used in the washing of the shirt. The complainant was told to leave the shirt so that the same could be sent to the manufacturer and to see if the manufacturer agree to replace the shirt because it was washed against washing instructions but the complainant did not leave the shirt. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is admitted that a notice dated 29.11.2022 was received and a reply dated 2.12.2022 was sent through Trackon courier on 2.12.2022. Thereafter, the complainant did not come to the store and brought the shirt for replacement. The complaint is false and frivolour and has been filed with a malafide motive to harass the opposite party. Lastly, the opposite party submitted that as a gesture of goodwill the opposite party is prepared to replace the shirt with a new shirt of the same value as per the choice of the complainant without any extra cost. 

5. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Shalini Bansal Ex.C-2, photograph of shirt in question Ex.C-3, legal notice Ex.C-4, postal receipt Ex.C-5, copy of bill Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.

6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sameer Thapar Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Manu Gulati Ex.OP-2, copy of reply of notice Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the complainant. 

8. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that on 26.7.2022 the complainant visited the showroom of the opposite party and purchased some readymade clothes to wear. He purchased one readymade shirt of Benign company of Rs. 2,195/- and three more readymade garments from the showroom of the opposite party worth Rs. 11,592/- and the opposite party issued the bill No. 1564 to the complainant. This white shirt of Benign company worth of Rs. 2,195/- is under dispute. One salesman namely Manu attended the complainant on behalf of opposite party and Manu promised to the complainant that there is guarantee of colour of the above said clothes. On 28.7.2022 when white shirt of Benign company was washed, the piping affixed on it left its colour on the white shirt (Ex.C-3). The complainant sent pictures on whatsapp to the opposite party. The opposite party asked the complainant to come again to the showroom. On 29.7.2022 when the complainant went to the showroom, the opposite party flatly refused to do anything. The complainant many times requested the opposite party to change the shirt but the opposite party did not accede to the request of the complainant.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party admitted that the complainant visited the showroom of the opposite party on 26.7.2022 and purchased different readymade garments. The particulars of the items purchased as mentioned in the bill No. 1564 is not denied by the opposite party. He further argued that salesman Manu Gulati who attended the complainant told the complainant that the items being purchased by the complainant are not manufactured by the opposite party and so there is no guarantee of colour or shrinkage regarding the garments being purchased by the complainant. The salesman advised the complainant to get the garments dry cleaned every time and advised against washing at home. A similar condition is also printed on the bill issued to the complainant which reads as under.- 

(5) “We do not undertake to give any guarantee regarding fastness of colour and durability and shrinkage of garments.”

(6) “No guarantee of pilling especially in woollen garments.”

The opposite party also raised objection that the complainant should not have got the shirt washed at home with a washing detergent as there is no guarantee of detergent having been used for washing of the shirt.

10. In the end the opposite party submitted that as a gesture of goodwill the opposite party is prepared to replace the shirt with a new shirt of the same value as per the choice of the complainant without any extra cost.

11. After going through the file and hearing the arguments of both the parties the Commission is of the view that despite the washing instructions and disclaimer on the bill, the buyer has a reasonable expectation that an expensive shirt would have fast colour. The seller by selling a high price item that lacked this basic feature failed to meet these reasonable expectations. Moreover, the opposite party is ready to replace the shirt with a new shirt of the same value as per the choice of the complainant without any extra cost.

12. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to replace the shirt in dispute with a new shirt of the same value as per the choice of the complainant without any extra cost and also to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

          3rd Day of May 2024

 

 

        (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member