Delhi

East Delhi

CC/293/2017

SUDHIR SAREEN - Complainant(s)

Versus

JYOTHY FABRICARE - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.293/2017

 

	SH. SUDHIR SAREEN R/O HOUSE NO.27, HARGOVIND ENCLAVE DELHI - 110092	….Complainant
Versus
	JYOTHY FABRICARE SERVICES LTD. SHOP NO.4, DDA MARKET, PUSHPANJALI, DELHI – 110092   ALSO AT:-   DAFFPL AVIATION FUELLING STATION VILLAGE SAHABAD MOHAMADPUR, IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI – 110061	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution	:	01.08.2017
Judgment Reserved on	:	23.08.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	31.08.2023

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

JUDGMENT

 

By the present order, the Commission would dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency of services on the part of OP in not returning the clothes given for the Dry-cleaning /washing and claiming compensation. 

1. Complainant submits that on 09.04.2017, he gave some of his garments to OP for dry cleaning against receipt. On receiving the garments back, the complainant  informed to OP that his jeans is totally damaged and the safari suit was exchanged with some other person. These clothes were collected by employees of OP and on telephonic conversation complainant was assured by OP’s employee that safari suit got replaced from the shop of OP would be traced soon and he also undertook liability on behalf of OP. However, nothing was done and on inquiry, the OP has given assurance in writing seeking one month time and also was offered compensation in lieu of those garments, but complainant refused as he had sentimental feelings with the safari suit as it was given by his daughter out of love and affection. The another employee of the OP informed the complainant that suit is untraceable and by accepting their mistake, offered Rs.20,000/-  which was also refused by complainant stating that suit is important for him and moreover, the suit along with its stitching alone, costed Rs.36,000/-. Again on 27.05.2017, complainant enquired about his damaged jeans and lost safari suit then he was misbehaved by OP’s employee. The complainant alleged that OP is deficient in its service and is also involved in unfair trade practice as the complainant is not only had lost his clothes, but even was ill-treated by OP’s employee that has caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss for which OP is liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/ towards  damages for the loss of safari, suit and jeans.
2. Upon notice OP appeared and filed his reply through authorised representative denying all the allegations of the complainant being devoid of any merit. OP admitted that nine pieces of garments were given by the complainant for dry cleaning on 09.04.2017 including the garments in dispute, to be returned on 18.04.2017 which were returned and no defect was found by the complainant at the time of delivery and after nine days of delivery, the complainant visited OP’s  outlet along with two garments, claiming that same did not belong to him and have been exchanged with some other person’s cloth. The executive of OP tried every possible means to convince the complainant that these garments are of complainant only and were not exchanged as they have not received any cloth of same description from any other person as the pattern is of the same period quality and also explained about the barcode but could not convince him.  The complainant gave a deadline of seven days to the executive of OP to get his garments back. OP submits that complainant’s allegation that the colour was faded after dry-clean due to the chemicals used by the OP is totally false and baseless and that OP has returned the safari suit and jeans in the same manner as it was. OP submits that the complaint has admitted that the clothes were not the brand-new one and were used garments and in the garb of present complaint he wants to extort the amount as per his will. OP further submitted that the complainant has created false and fabricated documents i.e. written undertaking and the names mentioned in alleged documents have no concern with OP. It is also submitted that there is no fault on part of OP and complainant is not entitled for any compensation as the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and misconceived and there is no deficiency on the part of OP, but it is the complainant who has used substandard clothes fabric in his clothes. Hence, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP also submits that complainant has not come up with the clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the commission. The complainant has failed to establish his case and has not placed on record any document that the cost of the safari suit and stitching charges which was given to the OP for dry cleaning was Rs.26,000/- as alleged. OP also submits that the present complaint involves several disputed questions of facts and law which would require the parties to give detailed oral and documentary evidence and therefore the present complaint cannot be tried in a summery manner.
3. The complainant has filed his evidence along with documents i.e. dry cleaning receipt dated 09.04.2017, EX.CW1/A; assurance letter written by OP, EX. CW1/B; copy of request letter written by opting for time for one month, EX.CW1/C;
4. OP has filed authority letter, Ex.OP1.
5. The Commission has heard the parties and have gone through the records of the documents filed by the complainant and OP.
6. It is not in dispute that garments were given by the complainant to the OP for dry cleaning total billing amount of Rs.1240/- on 09.04.17 and the scheduled delivery date was 12.04.2017. The other document, CW1/B and CW1/C were written by the employee of the OP, wherein it was admitted that the clothes were changed and they will try to find out the same and if not traceable, the damages will be paid by the company. In CW1/C1, a month time passed as sought by the employee of OP. Since both the documents were executed on the letterhead of OP, therefore, this cannot be said that the documents were falsely created by the complainant as the letter head is the property of the OP and in possession of OP, therefore, in no circumstances, the complainant could have laid his hands on. This contention of OP does not inspire confidence that the complainant would make such a letter by referring the entire facts on the letterhead of the OP. The OP has further failed to show that these documents were not issued on its letterhead or the same are forged or fabricated. The contention of OP that he tried to convince the complainant that the safari suit belongs to him is not satisfactory. The OP   has also not provided any explanation for the damage caused to jeans. The contentions of OP  itself established that there was some damage caused to the garments of the complainant and it were exchanged with some other government. The complainant is not obliged to receive the damaged or exchanged shirt or damage jeans. However, perusal of the documents also show that complainant has not filed any receipt showing the value of the clothes and the stitching charges paid to the tailor as claimed by him. Generally the clothes are given for dry cleaning which are valuable than the normal daily usable garments and needs special care by dry cleaning for its maintenance and long life. By not returning the same clothes /garments to the satisfaction of the complainant, OP has failed to maintain minimum norms in keeping the custody of the garments in safe and secure position and to deliver them as per agreed terms, which has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, deficiency on the part of the OP has been proved from his own pleadings, and he is liable to pay compensation.  However, since there is no evidence on record w.r.t. category of the clothes, the Commission cannot pass any order w.r.t payment/cost of the article but since the specific clothes was not given back, the OP is liable to pay compensation. 
7. Therefore, OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/  towards the loss suffered by the complainant, including the cost of compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost.
8. The OP is directed to pay the above stated amount within 30 days from the date of receiving the order, failing which the said amount shall carry on interest at the rate of 6%, per annum till its actual realisation by the complainant
9. The copy of the order they given to the parties as per CPA rules and file be consigned to record room.
10. The complaint case could not be decided within a statutory period due to heavy pendency of the cases before Commission and Corona period. Pronounced on 31.08.2023.