Haryana

Kaithal

CC/296/2023

Aman Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Muktsari - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Arvind Kumar

20 Feb 2024

ORDER

              

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 296 of 2023.

                                                               Date of institution:   08.11.2023.

                                                               Date of decision:      20.02.2024.

 

Aman Gautam, Advocate, age 22 years, r/o R.K. Puram Colony, Ambala Road,

Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

M/s Muktsari, Shop No.400/11, Ground Floor, Opp. Khurania Petrol Pump, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Prop/Partner.

...Opposite Party

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Arvind Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Opposite Party ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  - SUMAN RANA, MEMBER

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OP.

2.                It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that he purchased a three piece suit length and got stitched the same from OP vide bill No.1425 dated 16.09.2023 to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, who stitched the same and delivered to his father on 20.09.2023.  That he had to attend a marriage function at Chandigarh on 22.09.2023 and when he worn the said suit, then he was surprised to see the fitting of the suit was not proper, neither in length nor in body. That he came back from Chandigarh on 26.09.2023 and went to the shop of OP, who put the suit with it and assured that he will give proper fitting of the suit. That on 02.10.2023, he went to the shop of OP with his brother and astonished to see that the fitting of the suit was same as there was no improvement in the fitting of the suit. That the OP told that the suit cannot be altered and he has to bear the same in the same fitting and the suit lying with the OP. That he was feeling very embarrassed in the suit, as the same was not comfortable to him due to wrong fitting. That he requested the OP many timed either to alter the said suit or to refund its cost price, but all in vain. That the above act and conduct of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OP, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OP failed to appear before this Commission on the date fixed i.e. 19.12.2023, despite receipt of notice of this Commission, as such, OP was proceeded, against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and Mark-A.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a three piece suit length and got stitched the same from OP after paying Rs.10,000/-, who stitched the same and delivered on 20.09.2023, but when the complainant worn the same, then he was surprised to see the fitting of the suit was not proper, neither in length nor in body. He further argued that in this regard, the complainant approached the OP, who told that the suit cannot be altered and the complainant has to bear the same in the same fitting. He further argued that the complainant was feeling very embarrassed in the suit, as the same was not comfortable to him, due to wrong fitting, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OP.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the record, we found that the complainant purchased a three piece suit length and got stitched the same, from the OP, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, vide bill No.1425 dated 16.09.2023 Annexure C-1. The grievance of the complainant is that when he worn the said stitched three piece suit, then he was surprised to see the fitting of the suit was not proper, neither in length nor in body and the OP refused to alter the same, due to which, he felt very embarrassed in the said suit, as the same was not comfortable to him, due to wrong fitting, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OP. The complainant also produced photograph of himself, wearing that suit, as Mark-A, on the case file, wherein, the pent of that suit are looking very loose from the thighs.

8.                In order to support his contentions, complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documentary evidence Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 and Mark-A. Whereas, contrary to it, no one appeared on behalf of OP, despite receipt of notice, from this Commission, as such, OP was proceeded against ex-parte. Hence, the evidence adduced by the complainant, remained unrebutted and unchallenged against the OP, and thus, we have no option, but to accept the version of the complainant. Hence, case of the complainant is ex-parte proved.

9.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant purchased three piece suit length and got stitched the same, from the OP, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, but the OP did not stitch the said suit, as per measurement, rather stitched the same very loose, due to which, complainant could not use/wear the same, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OP. As per complainant, the suit in question is still lying with the OP, therefore, the OP is liable to pay the cost price of the suit amounting to Rs.10,000/- along with compensation and litigation expenses, to the complainant.

10.              Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/-, subject matter of bill Annexure C-1 along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation + litigation expenses. OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Commission, within a period of 45 days, from the date of this order, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @6% per annum, from the date of passing this order, till its actual realization.

11.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:20.02.2024.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.