Haryana

Ambala

CC/419/2017

Inderjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kidar Nath - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

 

                                                                             Complaint No.: 419 of 2017.

                                                                   Date of Instt.:    29.11.2017

                                                                   Date of Decision:.29.10.2018

 

 

Inderjit Singh r/o H.No. HT-19/3, Durand Road, Behind Raina Auditorium, Air Force Quarters, Ambala Cantt.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

 

1. M/s Kidar Nath & Sons (Textiles), 5616, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt, through its Prop./authorized signatory.

2. Quality Control Wing, Raymond Ltd. Mahindra Towers, 2^nd Floor, B Wingh, Pandurang  Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018

 

                                                                             …Opposite Parties.

 

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

                                                                  

BEFORE:                SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                             DR.SUSHMA GARG, MEMBER.

                  

 

Present:                Ms. Rajni, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. Sumit Sharma,  counsel for the OP No.1.

                             Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, counsel for OP No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

Per Dr. Sushma Garg, Member:

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging that he had purchased 11 stitched trousers of Raymond brand from OP. No1, who is authorized dealer of OP No.2,  vide cash memo Nos. 6325 dated 6.8.2016, CM16/896 dated 6.8.2016, CM 16/941 and CM16/942 dated 9.8.2016. However, within a few days of purchase, the color and shining of the cloth faded and they become dull. The complainant approached the OP NO.1 time and again and requested to replace the cloth/trousers with new one but OP no1 refused to do so, hence the present complaint before us with a prayer that to direct the Ops to replace all the 11 fabric/trousers with new ones or to refund the cost of the fabric along with interest @18% and further to pay a sum of Rs. 50000/- as compensation on account mental agony, pain and harassment.

2.                          In reply, the OP No.1 admitted that the complainant had purchased the aforesaid cloth/trousers from OP No.1, but it has been denied that the complainant ever approached the OP No.1 with any complaint of fading or loosing of sheen of the cloth. It has been further pleaded that even the complainant could have lodged the complaint online with the customer care of OP No.2 but no such action has been taken by the complainant. That, the aforesaid complaint is false and frivolous.

OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that the OP No. 1 is just a franchise of OP No.2 and that the relation of Op No.1 with OP No.2 is on principal to principal basis and that the OP No.2 cannot be held liable for actions, inactions or omissions of OP No.1.; On merits, it has been submitted that complainant never lodged any complaint with OP No.2 regarding any defect in the cloth manufactured by them. That as per the process of redressal of grievances followed by OP No.2, whenever a complaint is received by the franchisee, the customer has to hand over the material to the franchisee, who in turn send it to the OP No.2, which is further checked but the quality control department of OP No.2, and only thereafter it can be concluded that there is any defect in the material or not. That the complainant has neither lodged any complaint with OP No.2 regarding the defect in material nor deposited the material for checking as stated above. On merits, all the averments made in the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint along with exemplary costs has been prayed for.

3.                          To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.- C1/A, cash memo 6325 for Rs. 1513-C1, cash memo 6389 for Rs. 1352 -C2, Cash memo 16/896  for Rs. 2279-C3, copy of bank Account statements showing transfer of Rs. 5605 to OP No.1 - Ex. C4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OP No. 1 in its evidence tendered affidavit RA and closed evidence. OP No.2 tendered Affidavit R2/A and closed the evidence.

4.                          We have heard the rival contentions. To prove his case, the complainant has produced in the court the stitched trousers, which apparently have got faded and have lost their sheen. The purchase of the above cloth of brand ‘Raymond’ of OP No.2 by complaint from OP No.1 has been admitted. Once the complainant has shown that the clothes have faded and lost their sheen, the burden shifted on the Ops to prove that there was no defect in the cloth. The Ops have simply denied their liability. Even the counsel for the OP No.2 has tried to shift the entire liability on OP No. 1 by stating that it is not proved that the cloth is the original manufactured cloth of OP No. 2, that OP No.1 might have sold a duplicate cloth bearing Mark/ symbol of OP No.2.

5.                          We are not convinced with the above arguments of ld. Counsel of OP No.2. If the OP No.2 doubts that the OP No.1 is indulged in selling of duplicate cloth, then its their duty to check and verify for the same and if such doubt of OP No.2 is proved true, then it should have cancelled the franchise of OP No.1. The complainant, in good faith, purchased the cloth from OP No.1, which admittedly is the franchisee of OP No.2 and hence no fault can be attributed on the part of complainant in this respect.

6.                          In view of the above discussion, the complainant has proved his case. The present complaint is hereby accepted and same is hereby allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the price of the cloth as mentioned in the cash memos i.e Rs. 1513 in cash memo 6325, plus Rs.2279/- vide cash memo CM16/896 and Rs.5606 transferred to OP No.1 by ATM switch   along with interest @ 9% from the date of  the order till realization. However, since there is no mention of cash memo No.6389 in complaint, hence the above cash memo cannot be taken into consideration. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The orders be complied with in 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. Both the OPs are held jointly and severally liable to pay the above directed amount to the complainant subject to return the stitched trousers to OP No.1. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                                                 Dated: 29.10.2018

 

 

 

 (PUSHPUENDER KUMAR)    (DR.SUSHMA GARG)           (D.N.ARORA)

              Member                               Member                     President