Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/205

Mr Darshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

m/s Dimond pagri Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

04 May 2016

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Patiala
Patiala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/15/205
 
1. Mr Darshan Singh
r/o 15 A dashmesh Nagar near plice Line Road Tripuri Patiala
patiala
punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. m/s Dimond pagri Centre
near Jaggi Sweets Adalat Bazar Patiala
patiala
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Smt. Neelam Gupta PRESIDING MEMBER
  Smt. Sonia Bansal MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Inperson, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/205 of 18.9.2015

                                      Decided on:        4.5.2016

 

Mr.Darshan Singh @ 15 A Dashmesh Nagar Near Police Line Road (Tripri) Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

M/s Diamond Pagri Centre Near Jaggi Sweets Adalat Bazar, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………….Op

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:   In person

For Op                           Sh.K.K.Jain,Advocate

                                     

                                         ORDER

SONIA BANSAL,MEMBER

  1. The complainant had purchased a pagri (turban) from ‘Diamond Pagri Centre’ near Jaggi Sweets, Adalat Bazar vide bill dated 5.2.2015 for an amount of Rs.410/- and also paid Rs.210/- for chemical dye of that pagri and also gave it a branded trouser of the colour for the matching of his turban. Op demanded a time of one week to dye the same but it failed to fulfill its promise. It is further averred that complainant visited the shop of the Op many a times but Op failed to provide the dyed turban as also the pant upto 27.2.2015 and rather on the same day Op provided a fresh turban for dying to its dyer and assured the complainant that he will definitely get his dyed turban on 2.3.2015 but again Op failed to provide the dyed turban and also the pant of the sample colour. On 4.3.2015 complainant got his dyed turban but that was too light in colour from the branded pant. Complainant approached Op so many times but the Op failed to provide the complainant the dyed turban and misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant served the Op with a legal notice dated 24.3.2015 but to no effect. The act of the Op in not providing the proper colour of dyed turban to the complainant is said to be deficiency in service. Accordingly the complainant brought  this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to pay him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant and further to award him Rs.200/-towards the expenses of the litigation.
  2. On notice, Op appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. In its written statement, it is admitted by the Op that the complainant had purchased a turban on 5.2.2015 for an amount of Rs.410/- and Rs.210/- for chemical dye of that turban. The plea put forth by the Op is that complainant gave a sample (piece) of cloth instead of a branded pant. It is further pleaded that the complainant had to collect the dyed turban from the dyer and same was collected by the complainant. So neither any trouser nor the dyed turban is in the possession of the Op. It is denied that the complainant experienced any inconvenience or mental agony and harassment given by the Op. After controverting the other allegations of the complaint going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
  3. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit, Ex.CA and Ex.CB affidavit of Harbhajan Singh alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
  4. On the other hand, Op tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Inderpreet Singh Prop. of M/s Diamond Pagri Centre, Ex.OPB, affidavit of Sh.Inderpreet Singh, Ex.OPC affidavit of Sh.Satwinder Singh Sahni and Ex.OPD affidavit of Sh.Ahmed Javed and closed the evidence.
  5. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard both the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
  6. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased a turban from Diamond Pagri centre on 5.2.2015 for an amount of Rs.410/- and also paid Rs.210/- for chemical dye of that turban vide Ex.C4. The dispute arose between the parties when the complainant did not get his dyed turban and branded pant of the colour for the matching of his turban after visiting the Op so many times.
  7. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he gave his branded new pant for the matching of the colour of the turban with the pant but the plea taken up by the Op is that the complainant gave a piece of cloth for the matching of the colour of the turban.Though the complainant has averred that he had given a branded pant for the matching of the colour of the turban but he has failed to produce on record any evidence regarding the handing over of the branded pant to the Op for the matching of the colour of the turban. Another plea taken up by the Op is that the complainant had collected the dyed turban from the dyer. During the course of the argument, the complainant argued that he had to collect the dyed turban from the Op.As per the invoice also i.e. Ex.C4 it is quite evident that the complainant had to collect the dyed turban from the Op who charged Rs.410/- for the turban cloth and Rs.210/- for dying the same from the complainant. Failure on the part of the Op to provide the dyed turban to the complainant amounted to deficiency of service on the part of the Op.
  8. In view of the aforesaid discussion , we accept the complaint with a direction to the Op to refund the amount of Rs.620/-(i.e. the price of the turban cloth alongwith dying charges paid by the complainant) to the complainant alongwith Rs.2000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony undergone by the complainant. Op is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation. Order be complied by the Op within a period of 45 days on the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:4.5.2016

 

                                       Sonia Bansal               Neelam Gupta                       

                               Member                          Member                             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[ Smt. Neelam Gupta]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[ Smt. Sonia Bansal]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.