DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.D.CASE NO. 191/ 2014
Prakash Pattanaik,
S/o Sri Baikuntha Nath Pattanaik,
C/o M/s Royal Automobiles, 81, Budha Nagar,
Bhubaneswar.
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
M/s Kalamandir Royale, 364,
Sahid Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar,
Through its Partner Dalbir Singh. … Opp. Party
For the complainant : Mr. K.C.Prusty (Adv.)
For the O.P. : M/s J.B. Pattnaik & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 23/06/2014
DATE OF ORDER : 09/11//2022
ORDER
K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT
1. This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that, on 28/10/2013, he had purchased a T-shirt for a sum of Rs.1109/- from the OP. At the time of the purchase, the sales man of the OP show room assured the quality and reliability of the T-shirt and promised to exchange it or refund the value if the product turns out defective. Seven days after the purchase of the T-shirt, the complainant washed it. After washing, its quality deteriorated and the garment became un-suitable to wear. He went to the show room of the OP. The supervisor of the OP kept the T-shirt in question and asked the complainant to come after three days for taking delivery of a new one in lieu of the defective piece. Finally, on 20/5/2014, the OP refuted the claim of the complainant on the ground that the T-shirt cannot be exchanged due to external damage and there is no product fault. Hence this complaint.
3. On the other hand, OP filed their written version contending therein that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in fact, there is no deficiency in service and the complainant is bound by the terms & conditions printed on the back side of the cash memo. Besides, the manufacturer was consulted in the matter and the manufacturer opined that, there is no product defect but there is external damage to the garment. Hence it cannot be replaced. As such, the OP refuted the claim of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. At the time when the case was taken up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the complainant to take part in the proceeding, for which the case is being heard and disposed off on merits basing on the submissions made by the OP and documents available on record.
5. Perused the materials on record as well as evidence given by the OP through affidavit. On perusal of the terms & conditions printed on the back side of the money receipt, I find that the claim for replacement can be considered within 30 days subject to the prevalent policy / provision of the manufacturer. In this case, when the complainant went to the show room of the OP after the first wash of the garment in question, the supervisor of the show room kept it and assured him to come after three days to take a new one. The plea of the OP that, as the complainant was talking in a loud voice and disturbing the other customers, the supervisor kept the garment, is not acceptable. Further, the plea of the OP that the complainant brought the T-shirt seven months after the purchase, is not acceptable because Annexure -1 indicates that on 20/05/2014, the complainant was informed that the T-shirt cannot be exchanged due to external damage and there is no product fault. This goes to show that, much prior to that date, the T-shirt was received at the show room. What the manufacturer will observe does not matter. The matter in question is that, a customer who had purchased the garment at a cost of Rs.1109/- in the year 2013, cannot be made to suffer for low quality of that product. In this backdrop, the complaint bears merit. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby allowed on merit against the OP. The OP is directed to refund the cost of the T-shirt in question amounting to Rs.1109/- (Rupees one thousand one hundred nine) only to the complainant. The OP is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony suffered by him and a further sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only towards litigation expenses. The order be complied with by the OP within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute the order against the OP in accordance with law.
The order is pronounced on this day the 9th November, 2022 under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.
(K.C.RATH)
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree
(S.Tripathy)
Member (W)
Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno
