Damage made by the OP-1 during washing of a suit of the complainant No.2 who got it as a gift from the OP-1 who is the father in law of the complainant 2 has galvanized the grievance of the complainants to lodge this complaint u/s 12 of the CP Act 1986.
The quint essence of the complaint goes so. The complainant 2 had deposited his suit to the OP No.1 on 17.07.2017 & it was to be delivered on 30.07.2017. But the OP 2 had delivered a torn coat while delivering the suit on 07.8.2017 in lieu of 30.07.2017. It was immediately brought to the notice of the OP 1 the damaged condition of the coat. But they shifted the blame on the OP 2 who had stitched it. Since then the complainant No.1 and 2 had moved like a shuttle cock at the doors of OP No-1and 2 for redressal of the damage. But both had done nothing except blaming each other for the damage The complainant in their averment had claimed the original cost price Rs.20,477/- including the washing charge and a compensation of Rs. 50,000 /-& litigation cost Rs. 10.000/-.
The OP 1 had claimed to be the franchisee of specialist Dry Clean at Meherapur, Malda in his written versions. He claimed that if any compensation is to be paid that should be carried by the original company at Malda though he carried on the same business in the name of specialist Dry Clean. So he is a misjoinder here.
The OP 2 is his written version and examination in chief has told that the cloth from which the suit was made is a branded goods of Raymonds and the OP 2 is the tailoring unit of the branded company shop. They had delivered the suit on 29.05.2017 in good condition to the complainant No.1 and the complainant also had no cause of grievance regarding the quality of the cloth and also the stitching. They had admitted they had taken Rs. 15,997/- for the price of the cloth and Rs. 4,300/- for stitching. In their written version they had told more that direction for washing with ‘Dos & Donts’ have been distinctively printed on their purchase receipt.
On argument the complainant No. 1 and 2 had told that they had properly followed the direction as written by the Raymond shop from which they had purchased it at the cost Rs. 15,997/-. Accordingly they had given it for washing to the OP 1 for dry cleaning, which claims in their bill that it is a hygenic laundry and specialist dry clean. It is established that due to machine washing the damage had been caused to his coat.
The OP 2 on argument told that the OP 1 has negligently done their job without following the system of dry cleaning of a coat which contains some synthetic pads for making it properly fit. The OP 1 on argument has raised the question of maintainability which had been overruled u/s 1[(aa)] and section 11 (2) (a) of the CP Act 1986.
The OP 1 had agreed to pay the cost price of the suit i.e. the price of the cloth and the making charge.
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the earlier discussion the objection against maintainability of the instant case has already been overruled. The OP 1 has practically admitted his fault and deficiency in service for which he had agreed to compensate the loss. The OP 2 had proved his innocence in the instant case.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
- The complainant 1 and 2 is entitled to get the value of the suit from the OP 1. The complainant No.1 has not to return any piece of the suit to the OP 1.
- The OP 1 will pay Rs.15,997/- plus Rs.4,300/- exact price of the cloth and the stitching charges respectively to the complainant No.2 within 30 days from the date of this order. No compensation and litigation cost has been allowed as the complainant has been allowed not to return any piece of the suit to the OP 1.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
