PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party, as the Opposite Party misplaced and lost woolen trouser of the Complainant when it was given to the Opposite Party for dry-cleaning.
2) The facts of this complaint as mentioned by the Complainant are that the Complainant had given his Raymond premier woolen complete suit to the Opposite Party for dry-cleaning on 05/06/2010 but when he went to collect the said suit from the Opposite Party, he was told by the Opposite Party that the trouser of the suit was missing and it was not traceable. The Complainant had to proceed to Germany i.e. foreign countries on his official visit. He could not use this woolen suit in his foreign trip. The Opposite Party failed to trace the trouser. Ultimately the entire suit was of no use to the Complainant. He had to purchase a new complete suit for the foreign trip.
3) Thus, the Complainant has alleged the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party as the Opposite Party lost Complainant’s trouser.
4) It is also stated by the Complainant that he followed up the matter with the Opposite Party but, the Opposite Party did not respond to his requests of returning the complete suit.
5) The Complainant also sent a notice to the Opposite Party seeking compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his negligence in his service as stated above but, the Opposite Party did not heed to his notice.
6) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents in support of his complaint.
a) Bill dtd.04/01/09 of Smart & Hollywood Tailors & Outfitters of Rs.7,500/- as steaching charges of complete suit alongwith
receipt dtd.10/01/2009.
b) Bill No.27922 dtd.05/06/2010 issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
c) Notice ditd.30/06/2010 issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
d) Postal receipt dtd.01/07/2010.
e) Front page of passport of Vandana Nisheeth Misra.
7) The complaint is also supported by the affidavit of the Complainant.
8) The complaint was admitted and notice was duly served on the Opposite Party. One of the partners of the Opposite Party Shri. Jaiprakash Salian remained present on 16/05/2011 only but did not file written statement. Hence, an order was passed “to proceed without the written statement of the Opposite Party on 27/06/2011. Thereafter the Complainant filed affidavit of evidence and written argument wherein he reiterated the facts mentioned in his complaint.
9) We heard Mr. D.A. Gaikwad, the representative of the Complainant and perused the papers submitted by the Complainant and our findings are as follows –
10) The Complainant has given his Raymond Premier Woolen suit to the Opposite Party for washing on 05/06/2010. The steaching charges of this suit are Rs.7,500/-. From the tailor’s receipt it appears that it had been steached in Jan., 2009 and certainly its cost is more than Rs.7,500/-.
11) From the averments in the complaint and the papers it is also seen that the Opposite Party has lost the valuable pant of the suit of the Complainant rendering the complete suit unfit to wear for the occasions for which it was steached.
12) At the time of oral argument the representative of the Complainant has clarified that the receipt issued by the Opposite Party in respect of the cloths to be washed was in the name of the wife of the Complainant and hence, it is clear that the clothes are given to the Opposite Party for washing on 05/06/2010, but the Opposite Party lost the pant.
13) The Complainant has averred in his affidavit that he had an official tour programme to visit Austria, Germany, etc. As the Opposite Party lost the pant, he had to purchase the new suit. Therefore, the Complainant has prayed for the reimbursement of the cost of the Raymond premium woolen suit and other expenditure. As the Opposite Party did not file his say, we proceed against the Opposite Party without its say (written statement). Therefore, taking into consideration the averments made by the Complainant in his complaint and affidavit of evidence and documents submitted in support of the complaint, we are of the candid view that the Complainant deserves reimbursement for his suit and cost of this complaint. We therefore, pass the following order as follows –
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.35/2011 is partly allowed.
ii.Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.9,000/-(Rs.Nine Thousand Only) to the Complainant as cost of the ]
Raymond woolen suit of the Complainant.
iii.Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand Only) to the Complaint as cost of this
complaint.
iv.Opposite Party is directed to comply with the above said order within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
v.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
