DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.285/2015
Sh. Rahul Gupta
S/o Sh. Rajeev Gupta
R/o House No. C-4/122,
3B/8a, 2nd floor,
C-3 Gupta Colony, Khirki Extn.,
Malviya Nagar-110017 ….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Jyoti Fabricare Services Ltd.
Shop No.4, DDA Market, Usha Niketan,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110017
2. The Director/Authorized Signatory/Prop.
M/s Jyoti Fabricare Services Ltd.
Shop No.4, DDA Market, Usha Niketan,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110017 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 09.10.15 Date of Order : 23.10.18
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant vide cash memo No.EGRN EW40000003137 dated 15.02.15 at about 11.53 gave his french jacket with inner jacket/jerkin to the OPs for dry cleaning for Rs.164/- as charged by the OPs. When the complainant took back the jacket/jerkin after dry cleaning but the jacket was not in proper condition. The complainant showed the fault and returned the same to the OPs to do it in proper condition. After one week the jerkin’s condition was the same. The complainant again visited the OPs’s shop to take back the jacket/jerkin but the OP did not return back the inner part of the jacket. On 22.06.15, the complainant registered the complaint No. 41774 and requested the OPs to return back the jacket/jerkin in proper condition. After 10 days when the complainant again visited the OPs to take back jacket/jerkin the same was in the same condition and the OPs told him to take back the jerkin in the same condition and threatened the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant got this jacket/jerkin from his friend who had purchased it from the France and the cost of the jacket was about Rs.20,000/- and the said jacket was purchased one or two months before giving the same for dry cleaning to the OPs but due to defective and deficient service by the OPs jacket/jerkin became un-useable which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has sent the legal notice to the OPs but no reply was received from the OPs. Hence, pleadings deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complainant has filed the present complaint with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OP to return the jacket/jerkin in proper conditions to the complainant or in alternative to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant since the date of giving jacket/jerkin on service to the OPs till the entire payment.
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation due to suffering, harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
- Direct the OPs to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- to the complainant.
When no one appeared on behalf of the OPs to contest the case of the complainant, the OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.05.2016.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.
We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
OP has knowledge about the filing of the complaint but did not chose to contest it.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.
The complainant has filed cash memo which shows that the complainant has given his jacket/jerkin for dry cleaning alongwith other clothes to the OPs for which OP charged Rs.164/- against the dry cleaning of the said jacket/jerkin. The complainant has filed his affidavit that the OP had not returned the jacket/jerkin. The complainant has not filed any document to show that the jacket/jerkin cost was Rs.20,000/-.
The OPs had not returned the jacket/jerkin to the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The OPs should have returned the jacket/jerkin to the complainant or should have paid the amount to the complainant. It is a clear case of harassing the complainant without his fault. It amount to deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall become liable to pay Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 23.10.18.
