Haryana

Ambala

CC/82/2023

RANBIR SINGH CHADHA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MONTE CARLO FASHION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RANBIR SINGH, ADV.

21 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	82 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	01.03.2023
Date of decision	:	21.03.2024

Ranbir Singh Chadha, aged 72 years, s/o Sh. Bhagat Singh, resident of H.No.233, Palika Vihar, Ambala City. Mobile no:- 9466505850

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s Monte Carlo Fashion Ltd, Unit no.1 BXXIX-106,GT Road, Sherpur, Ludhiana (PB)-1410032
2. M/s Bombay Emporium Monte Carlo Exclusive Showroom, Shukul kund Road, Ambala City (HR.)

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                        Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Complainant in person. 

                      Shri Ravi Bhushan Vasishat, Authorized Representative of OP No.1.

                    Shri Vikas Verma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.4,158/- alongwith interest @10% p.a, till the date of its realization.
2. To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that on 14-01-2022 the complainant had purchased three sweaters i.e. one men's pullover-V/N-F/S and two lady CARDIGANS V/N-F/S from OP No.2 on 40% discount for Rs.5757/- vide invoice no.3096021101255. After three times of wearing of Men's pullover & Lady Cardigan (Mahroon colour), Fur (Boor) appeared on surface of the pullover and cardigan and the complainant immediately contacted the OP No. 2 in February 2022 and showed him defective sweaters and requested him to replace/exchange the defective articles but the OP.No.2 refused to do so and advised complainant to take up the issue with Monte Carlo Customer Care Toll Free No. On 16-02-2022, the complainant contacted customer care Toll Free No.1800-1800-501 upon which the complainant was directed to bring the matter to notice of customer care through E- mail. Accordingly complainant sent e-mail dated 16-02-2022 along with attachments i.e. Annexure C-2 to C-4 to customer care and in response to complainant's email dated 16-02-2022, the OP.No.1 informed vide e-mail dated 18-02- 2022 by taking false plea just to misled and to hide their fault stated that pilling (Fur/Boor) is a natural property of wool & there is no guarantee on woolen products. The  complainant had purchased the above said sweaters on the assurance of OP.No.2, who told that 'Boor' will not come on these articles/sweaters, as they have been made from the Magna wool & Merino Blended wool and are selected "superbrand" as mentioned on the backside of price tags which are at Annexure C-6 to C-9. The OP.No.2 further said that customers purchased our articles because of its brand name and fame and had given guarantee for the said articles/sweaters. Under those circumstances, the complainant served a legal notice dated 25-04- 2022 by registered post (Annexure C-10) to OPs requesting them to either replace the two sweaters/articles with the same tag value or refund the cost of articles within 15 days. After a month, Sh. Ravi, Law Officer of Monte Carlo contacted the counsel of the complainant on Mobile and expressed his desire to settle the issue amicably. After some days, Law Officer Sh. Ravi contacted the complainant and desired that the complainant should visit the showroom of OP.No.2 for replacement of the articles. Accordingly, the complainant visited the shop of OP No.2, but no articles of winter were available due to summer season. Then the complainant informed the Law Officer Sh. Ravi, who agreed that he will take up the matter with his superiors for refund of the cost of the articles. The complainant thereafter contacted Law Officer number of times and requested him to refund the cost of articles. In the month of Nov 2022, the Law Officer intimated the complainant that there is no provision in the company for refund of the price and he may visit shop of OP No.2 again for Exchange/ Replacement of articles. The complainant agreed to visit the shop of OP No.2, as per the instructions of the Law Officer for the Replacement of articles but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint is not maintainable; there is no privity of contract with the complainant and OP No.1; that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file this complaint etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.1 out rightly denies the appearance of fur (Boor) on the product as the product manufactured by the  OP No.1 is of highest standard and undergoes through numbers of quality check before they are offered for sale in the market and the complainant was rightly communicated that any pilling (Fur/boor) is nature property of the wool and there is no guarantee of such type of woolen products and was requested to bring the product so that pilling (Boor/Fur) shall be removed by using pilling removing machine. Mr. Ravi Bhushan Vasishat (Head-Legal) of OP No.1 has contacted the complainant and tried to convince him that pilling is a natural property of wool and there is no manufacturing defect in the product and requested him to withdraw the legal notice. During conversation it transpired that the complainant is regular customer/user of Monte Carlo brand and to this the authorized representative of the company asked the complainant to visit OP No.2 so that his grievance can be sorted out. Being special case of the complainant, the OPs agreed to replace the said product but the complainant was adamant to replace the product exactly with the same nature and as the complainant himself admitted that there was no winter season so he was offered to purchase the article of same amount to which he denied and started claiming the refund of amount which was no feasible. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint against it is legally not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint; OP No.2 is just a dealer and the manufacturing unit of men's pullover and lady cardigans is of OP No.1; the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant himself remained negligent in using the sweaters in question, rough and tough and he used the sweaters even during sleeping despite instructing him not to use the same in rough tough manner. The Fur (Boor) appeared on surface of the Men's pullover and lady cardigan only due to roughly use of the sweaters purchased by the complainant OP No.2 is just a dealer and the liability, if any, is of the  OP No.1, who is manufacturing unit of these sold sweaters. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-14 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, authorized representative for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith document Annexure OP-1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.  Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Vipin Jain, Proprietor of OP No.2-Company-M/s Bombay Emporium, Shukul Kund Road, Ambala City as Annexure OPW/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the complainant and authorized representative for the OP No.1 and learned counsel for the OP No.2 and have carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the OP No.1.
7.           Complainant submitted that by selling the defective sweaters and at the same time, neither replacing the same with a new one of the same specification nor refunding the price of the said sweaters, the OPs are deficient in providing service, negligent and adopted unfair trade practice.  
8.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for  OP No.1 while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that pilling of the sweaters in question is nature property of the wool  and as such, it cannot be  said  that due to said reason, the sweaters are defective. He further submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this case.    
9.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that because the complainant himself remained negligent in using the sweaters in question, rough and tough, as he used the same even during sleeping therefore now he cannot claim any compensation for pilling thereof.
10.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to any relief in this case or not. It may be stated here that though OP No.2 has specifically taken a stand that pilling of sweater is the result of negligence on the part of the complainant as he used the same while sleeping, yet, there is not even a single evidence placed on record to prove this stand. However, from this admission of OP No.2, it has been proved that the sweaters in question are defective and therefore under these circumstances, plea taken by OP No.1 that pilling of sweaters in question is nature property of the wool, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
11.           The sweaters were purchased on 14.01.2022 and the same suffered defects of pilling just in three wears only. Under these circumstances, it can easily be said that defective sweaters were sold to the complainant by the OPs. The complainant is therefore held entitled to get refund of the amount paid by him to the OPs for purchase of the said defective sweaters.
12.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-
    1. To refund the amount of Rs.4,158/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% p.a. from 14.01.2022, i.e the date of purchase, till its realization.
    2. To pay lumpsum compensation and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant.

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

  Announced:- 21.03.2024.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President