Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/352

Rajesh Beri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chawla Collections - Opp.Party(s)

Lalit Maini

19 May 2017

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :           352    

Date of Institution :     5.12.2016

Date of Decision :       19.05.2017

Rajesh Beri aged abut 40 years s/o Capt. Jaswant Singh Beri, r/o Uchi Gali, Mohalla Baba Farid, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                    

.....Complainant

Versus

Chawla Collections, Near Dashmesh Cloth House, Main Bazar, Faridkot

through its Proprietor.                                                         

  ........OP

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Lalit Maini, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Rajneeesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OP,

         

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the readymade Top with new one and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant and his wife alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant and his wife purchased one Readymade Jean worth Rs.1169.10, one Juelle Top for Rs.1345.50 and one readymade top worth Rs.899/-from OP vide proper bill dated 13.11.2016 on cash payment of Rs.3,415/-. It is submitted that it is clearly mentioned on bill issued by OP that “Goods exchanged within 7 days”. It is further submitted that out of all clothes one readymade top was short and at the time of purchase, OP assured complainant that if there be any need to change the said, top, they would replace it, but on very next day when complainant and his wife visited the shop of OP to get changed the said top, OP flatly refused to change the said piece and even used derogatory language for complainant and his wife and also insulted them in the presence of other customers. Both complainant and wife were greatly ashamed and felt humiliation due to this act of OP. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice to OP to change the said short top, but OP did not bother to give any reply. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. He has prayed for directing OP to replace the said readymade top and to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                  Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.12.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, the OP filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. However, it is admitted by Op that complainant purchased the alleged clothes from them. It is averred that Top purchased by complainant was not short as complainant purchased the same after verifying its quality, size and moreover, OP never gave any assurance regarding change of said top in case of need. It is further averred that complainant has not mentioned as to why he wants to get exchanged the said top and even complainant did not visit their shop for exchanging the said cloth piece just after next day of purchase, rather he approached them for getting changed the said readymade top after many days of purchase and even after wearing the said cloth for many times and its shape is also changed. Allegations of insult or use of derogatory language have been totally denied being wrong, incorrect, false and fabricated ones. It is asserted that complainant has falsely dragged them into litigations and has caused great loss and mental agony to OP. It is further asserted that all the allegations levelled by complainant are false and fabricated and no financial loss or inconvenience is caused to him. He has prayed for dismissal of complainant.

5                                     Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and document Ex C-2 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                           In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Deepak Chawla, Partner as Ex OP-1 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP.

7                                                    We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

8                                                 Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant and his wife purchased one Readymade Jean worth Rs.1169.10, one Juelle Top for Rs.1345.50 and one readymade top worth Rs.899/-from OP vide proper bill dated 13.11.2016 on cash payment of Rs.3,415/-. It is submitted that it is clearly mentioned on bill issued by OP that “Goods exchanged within 7 days”. It is further submitted that out of all clothes one readymade top was short and at the time of purchase, OP assured complainant that if there be any need to change the said, top, they would replace it, but on very next day when complainant and his wife visited the shop of OP to get changed the said top, OP flatly refused to change the said piece and even used derogatory language for complainant and his wife and also insulted them in the presence of other customers. Both complainant and wife were greatly ashamed and felt humiliation due to this act of OP. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice to OP to change the said short top, but OP did not bother to give any reply. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 5.

9                                             To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OP argued before the Forum that complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is filed on false and vague grounds. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party though it is admitted by Op that complainant purchased the alleged clothes from them. It is averred that Top purchased by complainant was not short as complainant purchased the same after verifying its quality, size and moreover, OP never gave any assurance regarding change of said top in case of need. It is further averred that complainant has not mentioned as to why he wants to get exchanged the said top and even complainant did not visit their shop for exchanging the said cloth piece just after next day of purchase, rather he approached them for getting changed the said readymade top after many days of purchase and even after wearing the said cloth for many times and its shape is also changed. Allegations of insult or use of derogatory language have been totally denied being wrong, incorrect, false and fabricated ones. It is asserted that complainant has falsely dragged them into litigations and has caused great loss and mental agony to OP. It is further asserted that all the allegations levelled by complainant are false and fabricated and has prayed for dismissal of complainant.

10                                             The case of complainant is that he purchased some clothes from OP and out of all clothes, one readymade top was short against which OP had already assured replacement at the time of purchase in case of need, but when very next day, complainant and his wife went to the shop of OP, OP refused to change the said top and also insulted complainant and his wife with derogatory and foul language, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted mainly on the point that complainant did not reach their shop on the next day of purchase, rather he visited their shop after two weeks of purchase and  even the top for which complainant wants replacement is used piece and does not look new. He asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                                       From the careful perusal of evidence and record placed on file, it is observed that complainant purchased the said readymade top from OP and it is also admitted by OP that complaint made purchases from their shop. Complainant has relied on document Ex C-2, copy of bill, which proves the fact that complainant purchased the said readymade top from them. Ex C-3 is the legal notices, that reiterates the pleadings of complainant and proves that complainant and his wife were harassed and humiliated by the ill behaviour of OP. ExC-4 and 5 are receipts clearly proving the fact that OP had sufficient knowledge of grievance of complainant, which they did not try to redress and complainant had to file the complaint under compelling circumstances. On the contrary, OP  did not brought on record any sufficient evidence or document to defend against the allegations of complainant.

 12                                               In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to refund Rs.899.10 i.e the cost of readymade top. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and litigation expenses suffered by complainant.  Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 19.05.2017

Member                President                                          (P Singla)            (Ajit Aggarwal)