The present case arises over alleged non-delivery of 3 nos. silk sarees worth Rs. 21,000/- by the OP dry cleaner.  Complainant has claimed for reimbursement of the value of the sarees, i.e., Rs. 21,000/- along with compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and an equal sum as litigation cost.

In brief, facts of the case, are that on 12-09-2014, 3 silk sarees worth Rs. 21,000/- were given to the OP for cleaning on an urgent basis against its charge of Rs. 510/- and the said sarees were scheduled to be delivered on 29-09-2014.  When the Complainant and his wife visited the OP shop for taking delivery of the sarees, the OP could not locate the same.  In fact, subsequent visits to the said shop also met dead ends and the Proprietor of the said shop virtually confessed that the sarees got missing and assured the Complainant to compensate the losses.  However, allegedly the OP did not take any positive step to either return the sarees or reimburse the value of sarees.  Hence, this case.

On the basis of above facts, the complaint was admitted and notice was sent to the OP.  From the postal track report, it transpires that notice was duly served upon the OP on 11-04-2016.  However, it did not turn up to defend its case.  So, the case proceeded ex parte against the OP.

Decision with reasons

The solitary point for determination is, whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief.

Before dealing with the merit of the case, certain discrepancies, as cropped up in respect of the petition of complaint, bears mentioning.  On one hand, as per the cause title, the case is moved by Mrs. Ruma Das and also an authority letter executed by Mrs. Ruma Das in favour of his husband is filed.  On the other hand, it is stated in the petition of complaint that the Complainant gave 3 sarees of his wife, Mrs. Ruma Das to the OP and further that, on the scheduled date of delivery, the Complainant along with his wife visited the shop of the OP for the purpose of taking delivery of the sarees.  Although such discrepancies are totally unwarranted and highly condemnable, we are of view that if the case is dismissed over this ground, it would be detrimental to justice. 

Be that as it may, we find that the factum of dispute remains undisputed/unrebutted.  The photocopy of the bill no. 20784 dated 12-09-2014, leaves nothing to imagination that 3 nos. silk sarees were indeed handed over to the OP for cleaning.  There is nothing on record to suggest that the same were returned to the Complainant.  This clearly brings to fore gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  As such, we are of view that the OP is duty bound to reimburse the value of lost sarees. 

Although the Complainant has not filed any purchase bill copy in respect of the sarees concerned, insofar as the value of sarees as declared by the Complainant remained unchallenged, there is nothing to disbelieve the assertion of the Complainant in this regard.  However, fact remains that the sarees were old/used sarees.  Therefore, the Complainant cannot expect the original price of the same.  On a conservative basis, we are of view that if an amount of Rs. 12,000/- is awarded in favour of the Complainant, it would meet ends of justice.  Together with this the Complainant would be entitled to litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/156/2016 be and the same is allowed ex parte in part.  OP is directed to pay, within two months hence, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to the Complainant being the cost of 3 sarees together with litigation cost amounting to Rs. 5,000/-.