DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Consumer Complaint No.130 of 08/04/2019 Decided on: 31/07/2019.

Kesar Singh aged about 64 years son of Late Sh. Ajmer Singh R/o Village Kapuri, Tehsil and Distt. Patiala.

….Complainant

Versus

1. Libas Emporium, SCO 18, Rani Indra Kumari Market, Bhupindra road, Patiala, through its Sole Prop./ M.D./Chairman/ Authorised Signatory.

2. Raymond Tailor, Tailor Faizal, Office at Libas Emporium, SCO 18, Rani Indra Kumari Market, Bhupindra road, Patiala. (Withdrawn)

….Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member

ARGUED BY:

Sh. N. S. Saifdipur Adv. counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 ex-parte.

ORDER

B. S. DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1. The complainant Kesar Singh (here-in-after referred as complainant) has filed the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection act 1986 (here-in-after referred as Act) against Libas Emporium (here-in-after referred as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated that the case of the complainant is that he purchased the clothes of hot Pent-Coat for Rs.7500/- from OP No.1 on 30/1/2019 and the OP assured to stitch the clothes and charged Rs.3500/- for it. The OP gave the time for preparing Pent-Coat within one month.

3. It is contended that after one month the complainant visited the office/ shop of the OP to take the pent-coat in OK position and when the complainant tried the pent-coat, the fitting of the pent -coat was very tight to wear. The complainant told the OP that the pent-coat is not proper to wear and is very tight condition. The OP promised to re-stitching the same within two weeks. After two weeks the complainant visited the office/ shop of OP for taking the above noted pent-coat but the OP put on the matter on one pretext or the other and gave the time for another two weeks. Again after two weeks the complainant visited the office/ shop of OP alongwith Bikramjit Singh s/o Amarjit Singh r/o village Bangra, Distt. Patiala but the OP put off the matter again on one pretext or the other and asked the complainant to come after one month. The OP linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Till today the OP have not given the above noted hot pent-coat to the complainant in wearing condition. Lastly on 18.3.2019, the complainant visited the office/ shop of the OP alongwith aforesaid Bikramjit Singh but the OPs flatly refused to provide the pent -coat to the complainant.

4. It is also contended that due to the said act of the OP, the complainant has been harassed and suffered from mental pain and agony and also resulted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

5. By this complaint, the complainant has prayed for:-

i) To pay the cost equal to the clothes and stitching i.e. Total Rs.11000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.

ii) To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

iii) To pay Rs.11000/- as costs of litigation.

iv) To pay Rs.25000/- on account of mental harassment, agony, pain and tension .

6. Despite service of notice, OP No.1 did not come present and hence proceeded against ex-parte.

7. The ld. counsel for the complainant afforded opportunity to lead the evidence of the complainant. In evidence ld. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.CA along with documents copies of invoices Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of this complaint carefully.

9. During the course of arguments, the ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts as narrated in complaint. It is contended that after the purchase of cloth, the OP told the complainant that he has high class quality stitching arrangements of his own and allured the complainant for getting the suit stitched from there itself. He specifically argued that the OP has intentionally harassed the complainant and the act, omission and commission of OP is established unfair trade practice. By not providing required and expected service by OP also amounts to deficiency in service. Ld. counsel stressed that sever punitive action be taken against OP so that he may not repeat with other customers.

10. Admittedly the complainant has purchased cloth (Textile) on 30/1/2019 vide invoice No.2018-19/1476 (Ex.C-1) for Rs.7500/- inclusive of taxes from OP. The OP has his own arrangement of stitching the clothes and charged Rs.3500/- from the complainant vide receipt dt.30/1/2019 (Ex.C-2) for stitching his clothes. The complainant has filed a sworn affidavit to prove his contentions made in the complaint and in the absence of any rebuttal there is no reason to dis-believe these averments. It is a established fact that the complainant has handed over this material (cloth) to the tailor arranged by the OP in his shop for stitching of pent-coat. After the stitching of the pent-coat the complainant visited the shop of OP for trial and found it in a very tight to wear and the OP promised for re-stitching. The complainant visited the shop number of times to collect the coat-pent but OP never handed over the stitched clothes (pent-coat) to the complainant and that is why he was forced to file the present complaint. The entire action & acts of the OP leads to indulging in unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.

11. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of which the opponent's case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made there are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. The opposite party did not appear before this Forum despite service and presumption of service was raised and it was proceeded against ex-parte. Thus, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted. In view of this all the averments made in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted by the opposite party and no adverse inference is to be drawn against it.

12. Thus allowing the complaint, we direct the OP to refund Rs.11,000/- along with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of receipt of the said amount i.e. 30/01/2019 till realization with another sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation inclusive of costs of causing harassment, inconvenience & mental tension and litigation expenses within 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

13. The complaint could not be decided in the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

14. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned.

PRONOUNCED

DATED: 31/07/2019

B. S. DHALIWAL INDERJEET KAUR

MEMBER MEMBER