Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/191

Munish Ladha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mangla Saree Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Deora

05 Aug 2019

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

C. C . No.                   191 of 2018

Date of Institution :       20.11.2018

Date of Decision :           5.08.2019

Munish Ladha aged about 38 years son of Ravinder Ladha resident of Street No. 1 (L), Hira Singh Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.                                                         

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Mangla Saree Centre, Near Batra Bangle Store, Palika Bazar, Railway Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot through its Proprietor Kiran Bala wife of Hans Raj.
2. Mangla Saree Centre, Near Batra Bangle Store, Palika Bazar, Railway Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot through its Authorized Signatory Amit Mangla.

                                    ....Opposite Parties(Ops)

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Present:       Sh Sanjiv Deora, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to refund a sum of Rs.4,900/- i.e Rs.3,800/-as price of ladies suit alongwith stitching charges of Rs.1,100/-or to replace the same with new one alongwith

cc no.- 191 of 2018

stitching charges and for further directing Ops to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a ladies suit worth Rs.3800/- for his wife against proper bill dated 12.10.2018 and got stitched the same from Prabh Boutique, Kotkapura by paying Rs.1100/-as stitching charges, but when wife of complainant wore the said suit, she was surprised to see that suit in question lost its actual quality and started losing its colour due to being of inferior quality. Both complainant and his wife approached OPs on 16.10.2018 and complained about its quality to OPs. On this, OPs deposited the suit and assured to remove the defect within 15 days and in case of failure to replace the said suit, they assured to refund its cost price. After about fifteen days, when complainant approached Ops to know about the status of said suit, Ops told him that suit in question has been sent to dealer and asked him to come after 7-8 days. Complainant again approached Ops after about 10 days and requested him return the cost of suit alongwith stitching charges or to replace the same, but they did not pay any heed to his genuine requests and refused to do anything needful, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. Complainant has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.11.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 

cc no.- 191 of 2018

4                                                On receipt of the notice, OPs filed reply wherein submitted that allegations levelled by complainant are incorrect and there is no deficiency in service on their part. However, it is admitted by OPs that complainant purchased the said suit from them, but have totally denied all the other allegations of complainant. It is averred that they did not give any guarantee or warranty for said suit, but they told complainant that said suit is to be dry cleaned and should not washed at home with soap or detergent and perusal of suit shows that said suit has been washed with some cheap soap due to which its look has been finished. It is totally denied that suit was not of good quality. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought have been refuted being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                   Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1/A and documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-3 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                        The ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Mangla Ex R-1 and then closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                                         We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

8                                                     We have anxiously considered the pleadings of complainant and rival contentions in the light of evidence placed on record. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a suit for his wife and paid Rs.3800/-

 

cc no.- 191 of 2018

to OPs and got stitched the same from a boutique by paying stitching charges of Rs.1100/-, but his wife wore the same for attending a party, she was surprised to see that said suit lost its look and its colour was also changed. Complainant reported the matter to Ops and OPs assured to remove the defect within 15 days but did nothing needful and failed to remove the defect.  Grievance of complainant is that despite his repeated requests, OPs neither replaced the said suit nor refunded the cost of same alongwith stitching charges. In reply, stand of OPs is that at the time of making purchase, they told complainant that suit should not be washed at home, rather it was required to be dry cleaned, but said suit was washed at home with some cheap soap due to which its colour was lost and its look was finished. Moreover, as per OPs said suit did not bear any guarantee or warrantee. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9                                             To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant brought our attention towards bill dated 12.10.2018 that proves the fact that complainant purchased the said suit from OPs against proper bill for Rs.3800 that also included CGST and SGST. Ex C-3 is copy of receipt given by Ops to complainant in lieu of defective suit deposited by complainant with them and it also bears signature of OPs and Ex C-2 is copy of bill issued by Prabh Boutique for Rs.1100/-, which complainant paid for stitching of said suit. On the contrary, Ops have nothing to say to contradict the pleadings of complainant. complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his grievance and all documents produced by him are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

10                                  In the light of above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that due to poor quality of said suit, complainant had to suffer huge harassment and mental agony. Had Ops redressed the grievance of

cc no.- 191 of 2018

complainant by making replacement of said suit, fate of case would have been different. Act of OPs in not redressing the grievance of complainant amounts to deficiency in service. OPs have been deficient in providing services to complainant and there is trade mal practice on their part. We are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with direction to Ops to refund Rs.4,900/- i.e cost price of suit alongwith stitching charges with interest at the rate of 8 % per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him  and for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of its receipt, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 5.08.2019          

                                      (Parampal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                        Member                                   President