Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/335

Yogsh Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Demarte - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Heer Adv

02 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:335 dated 12.07.2021.                                                         Date of decision: 02.02.2024.

 

Yogesh Goyal aged about 28 years S/o. Sh. Mohan Lal Goyal, R/o. House No.148, Sector-4C, Shastri Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh.                                                                                                                         ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

M/s. Demarte, 92, Surya Kiran Building, The Mall, Ludhiana, Through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                                            …..Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 2, 35 & 36 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

SH. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. S.S. Heer, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Harish Bhagat, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the OP has been dealing with the dresses for marriage purpose at 92, Surya Kiran Building, The Mall, Ludhiana. The complainant placed an order for purchase of Lengha on 17.03.2020 vide order cum bill bearing No.GST-7732 for Rs.1,49,000/- for his sister Dimple Goyal to be solemnized on 16.04.2020. The complainant paid Rs.74,000/- as advance and remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- was to be paid at the time of delivery of Lengha on 03.04.2020. The complainant stated that due to spread of COVID-19 Pandemic and imposed lockdown by Govt. of India, all the shops and business houses were closed. On 03.04.2020, the complainant contacted the OP for delivery of Lengha but the OP neither gave delivery of ordered Lengha nor gave any response regarding its supply. Even the complainant visited the shop of the OP but the same was closed. The complainant contacted the OP a number of times but received no response till 15.04.2021. The complainant further stated that he ordered Lengha for marriage of his sister on 16.04.2020 but due to negligence of the OP he was forced to perform marriage of his sister without wedding dress i.e. Lengha due to which his reputation was spoiled in the eyes of society and relatives. After marriage of his sister, the complainant visited the OPs for refund of advance amount of Rs.74,000/- but the OP flatly refused to refund the same which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental pain and agony as well as financial loss of Rs.74,000/-. Further his sister was deprived of use of specially ordered Lengha on her marriage. The complainant served a legal notice dated 16.04.2021 upon the OP but no reply was received. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.74,000/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- etc.

2.                Upon notice,  the OP appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; lack of locus standi; lack of cause of action; suppression of material facts; the complainant being estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint  etc. The OP admitted the fact regarding placing an order by the complainant on 17.03.2020 and for delivery of Lehnga on 03.04.2020 for marriage of his sister to be solemnized on 16.04.2020. The OP stated that a lock-down curfew w.e.f. 21/22.03.2022 was imposed and public gathering was limited as per COVID guidelines due to which the complainant and his sister and family were unwilling to purchase such a costly dress of Rs.1,50,000/- due to restriction for limited gathering of people in the marriage. As such, the complainant is trying to take benefit of his own wrongful acts by blaming and blackmailing the OP. However, the complainant is liable to make payment of balance cost price of Lehnga to the OP.

                   On merits, the OP reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections as well as factual submission. The OP has denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Tax Invoice dated 17.03.2020 issued by the OP,  Ex. C2 is the copy of legal notice dated16.04.2021, Ex. C3 is the postal receipt and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RD of Sh. Hardeep Singh, partner of the OP along with documents Ex. R1 is Tax invoice dated 17.03.2020 for item name Dress 6204, Ex. R2 is the Tax Invoice dated 17.03.2020  for item name Dress 6211 red, Ex. R3 is the copy of screen shot/test messages and closed the evidence.              

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.        

6.                From the pleadings of the parties, it is an admitted fact that on 17.03.2020, the complainant placed an order for purchase of Lehnga worth Rs.1,49,000/- with the OP and also paid an advance amount of Rs.74,000/- as reflected in Tax Invoice Ex. C1 = Ex. R1. It is also an admitted fact that the said Lehnga was ordered for the purpose of marriage of sister of the complainant to be solemnized on 16.04.2020. Due to outbreak of Covid-19, curfew was imposed all over the country and the all the social as well as business activities were restricted/limited as per guidelines issued by the Government of India as well as Government of Punjab. Due to said reason, the OP could not perform his part and failed to deliver the Lehnga on the promised date despite numerous attempts to contact him by the OP. As such, the complainant had to solemnized marriage of his sister without such a costlier Lehnga and the complainant and his family had to suffered on account of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Further legal notice dated 16.04.2021 Ex. C2 was served upon the OP but no response was given by the OP. Rather in the written statement, the OP claimed the balance amount of Rs.75,000/- from the complainant. So in the given set of circumstances, when the OP has admitted the receipt of payment of Rs.74,000/- and non-performance of contract on its part though with some explanation, it would be just and  appropriate to order the refund of Rs.74,000/- to the complainant.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OP shall refund the amount of Rs.74,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order till date of actual payment. The interest paid on the amount shall be considered as compensation. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

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

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.02.2024.

Gobind Ram.