Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/359

Reema Pathak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Meenakshi Chabbra - Opp.Party(s)

Aman Ashok

13 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 359 dated 25.08.2023.                                                        Date of decision: 13.12.2023. 

 

Smt. Reema Pathak aged about 40 years wife of Sh. Mandeep Pathak, Resident of H. No.3166, Sector-38, Chandigarh Road, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana. M. No.99158-100055.                                                                                                                                                                                 ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Meenakshi Chabbra, owner of Boutique, Attire Vila, Sarabha Nagar, 33-B Block, Sat Paul Mittal Road, Ludhiana. Pin Code 141001.                                                                                                            …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Amar Ashok Pathak, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 08.01.2023, the complainant visited boutique of the OP at Attire Villa, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana where she liked and selected one dress worth Rs.22,000/- to be delivered after needful alterations. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as advance to the OP which was transferred through Google Pay. The complainant further stated that on 21.01.2023, the dress was sent by the OP in most careless and negligent manner through her female worker who kept the same in diggy of her Activa without packing and same was delivered to her husband at Pathak Power Point petrol pump on Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. She received balance of Rs.12,000/- from Manager Mukesh. When the complainant checked the dress at home, she found stains on it and was also torn at two places and alteration was also not done overall. Moreover, same was delivered without getting it dry-cleaned. Even at the time of selection, the OP assured to remove the stains by dry cleaning before its delivery to the complainant. The OP was sent photograph of stains through Whatsapp and she assured to get back the dress from petrol pump with assurance to remove the stains. According to the complainant, she personally visited the boutique of the OP to collect the dress but the stains were not removed and OP was not present at that time. However, she assured to remove the stains and admitted her mistake/negligence of not getting the dress dry-cleaned earlier. The complainant further stated that she was to attend function on 27.02.2023 and sent a message to OP to return Rs.22,000/-. On 01.03.2023, the complainant received message for delivery of dress but the OP did not deliver the dress to the complainant. On 02.03.2023, the complainant sent message to OP to refund Rs.22,000/- as she has been harassed for the last 2 months but the OP did not return the money nor delivered the dress till 09.03.2023 despite repeated calls. On 02.04.2023, the complainant received message from the OP for the delivery of the dress in the evening. However, the same was delivered to the complainant the next day morning which was received by domestic helper of the complainant. The complainant further stated that when she asked the person of OP to take back the dress as she will accept the dress after checking but the person of OP ignored and did not take it back. When the complainant checked the dress, few stains were still there and it was torn at few places. The complainant told the OP on phone but she failed to respond to genuine demand of the complainant. This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The OP sent a legal notice dated 11.04.2023 to the OP but to no result. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant prayed for issuing direction to the OP to pay Rs.22,000/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice issued to the OP was received with report of refusal and none turned up for OP despite the service of notice and as such, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.09.2023.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint as well as affidavit Ex. CB of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Manager of Pathak Petrol Pump, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. The complainant also placed on record Ex. C1 is the copy of snap shot of payment of Rs.10,000/- through Google pay to Meenakshi Chhabra, Ex. C2 is the copy of whatsapp chatting, Ex. C3 is the copy of legal notice dated 12.04.2023 and closed the evidence.                 

4.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and documents annexed by the complainant.

5.                As per the averments of complainant as well as affidavit Ex. CA of the complainant, she purchased one dress worth Rs.22,000/- from the OP, out of which she paid Rs.10,000/- to the OP through Google Pay on 08.01.2023 and this fact can be perused vide Ex. C1. Further as per the version of the complainant, she paid balance amount of Rs.12,000/- in cash to the delivery person of the OP on 21.01.2023 through her Manager Mukesh who has also tendered his affidavit Ex. CB reiterating the factum of making payment of balance amount of Rs.12,000/-. It is claimed through legal notice dated 12.04.2023 Ex. C3 and in affidavit Ex. CA of complainant that the dress was defective because the same was having stains on it which the OP failed to remove despite its repeated dry cleaning etc. Despite repeated requests for refund of the amount of Rs.22,000/-, the OP did not adhere to the request of the complainant  and as such, OP rendered deficient service to complainant. It would be most appropriate to examine the definition of ‘defect’ as enshrined in Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is re-produced as under:-

“ ‘Defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression “defective” shall be construed accordingly.”

Thus, the tiles (Product) which do not confirm to the compulsory standards are liable to held ‘Defective’ under the Act.

7.                By selling the defective product to the complainant, the OP is indulged in unfair trade practice as per Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act defines ‘unfair trade practice’ which means trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, the relevant portion of clause (i) is as under:-      

“(i) making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which –

1. falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model.”     

Moreover, the defects, if any, like discoloration or marks or spots or cracks may appear after the installation of tiles. Besides, it is the duty of the manufacturer to ensure that the tiles he sells are defect free and he cannot expect the consumer to do that kind of inspection. In Chandra Marbles Vs Ramanchandran CH (RP No 1250 of 2013), decided on June 19, 2020 in which the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that the ultimate responsibility for defective tiles (or any other product) may fall on the manufacturer. However, as far as the consumer is concerned, the dealer who sold the tiles is liable to refund not only the cost of the tiles but also the cost of laying them. It is open to the dealer to recover the amount from the manufacturer subsequently. As such, in the given set of circumstances, this Commission is of the view that the OP is guilty of selling defective product to the complainant as a result the complainant had to suffer. Therefore, it would be just and appropriate, if the complainant is directed to return the defective dress to the OP within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and further the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of defective dress from the complainant, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest on the said amount @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. The OP is further burdened with composite costs of Rs.5,000/-.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed exparte that the complainant is directed to return the defective dress to the OP within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and further the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of defective dress from the complainant, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest on the said amount @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                     President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.12.2023.

Gobind Ram.