BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.356 of 2014

Date of Instt. 15.10.2014

Date of Decision :10.06.2015

Harish Chander aged about 61 years son of Bua Ditta R/o 138, Model Town, Ner Sanjay Karate, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s New Banarsi Lenga House, Bazar Bhairon, Quilla Mohalla, Inside Mai Hiran Gate, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Partner-Bindu Aggarwal.

2. Bindu Aggarwal C/o M/s New Banarsi Lenga House, Bazar Bhairon, Quilla Mohalla, Inside Mai Hiran Gate, Jalandhar.

3. Raj Kumar working as salesman C/o M/s New Banarsi Lenga House, Bazar Bhairon, Quilla Mohalla, Inside Mai Hiran Gate, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.APS Pathania Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Rajneesh Khanna Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is permanent resident of the above said address and the opposite parties are dealing with different categories of Lehngas and other ready-made garments and in this regard, the opposite parties have advertised and are running a shop of Lehnga under the name and style M/s New Banarsi Lehnga House, on the above said address and they specially represent to all the customers that the bridal Lehngas and Sherwanis are the specialization of the opposite parties and the opposite parties also sell the Sarees and Lehngas, besides giving the Lehngas on rent at the time of solemnization of marriages and on other special occasions. Since the opposite parties are running the above said shop and are also representing to all the customers, as per their representations, the complainant was also allured by their advertisements and sign boards and since there was the marriage of the daughter of the complainant which was going to be solemnized on 2.5.2014 and the said function was scheduled from 2-3 days and the complainant being the father of the bride alongwith his wife and daughter Yukti went to the shop of the opposite parties in the first week of April 2014, where the opposite party No.2 represented that he is the owner of the said shop and the opposite party No.3 represented that he is working as a salesman and the dealing hand of the above said Lehnga house. The complainant, his wife alongwith their daughter were shown about 20/25 Lehngas for the purpose of the said occasion on rent by the opposite parties and the complainant asked for a new Lehnga which was required to be given on rent to them as they wanted to use a new Lehnga at the time of the marriage and they were not liking to give a second hand or old look Lehnga to their daughter on the party of her marriage. After accepting the request of the complainant, the opposite parties represented and showed them a red and green mix colour Lehnga which was brand new and thereafter the same was selected by the complainant. The complainant was represented that the said Lehnga carries the rental value of Rs.12,000/- alongwith the artificial jewelery, whereas the earlier set of Lehngas which were shown to the complainant, were carrying half rental value than the new Lehnga. Inspite of this the complainant agreed to take the said newly stitched Lehnga having the rental value of Rs.12,000/- for the period from 28.4.2014 to 4.5.2014. The opposite parties further assured to the complainant, his wife and daughter that the said Lehnga will be available to them on 28th of April and all the fittings of the said Lehnga can also be checked on the same day and if it will be seen that some alterations are required, the same can also be done on the same day. Since the complainant and his family are Hindus and it is a belief in their religion and family custom that a bride is not allowed to go outside the house before 2-3 days of her marriage especially after the Mehndi Ceremony. Thus, the complainant requested the opposite parties that the said Lehnga which was selected by them be got available to them on 28.4.2014 i.e on the same day. On the said appointed date, the complainant, his wife and daughter went to the shop of the opposite parties and the opposite parties represented to the complainant that the said selected piece has been given to some other person and they should select some other piece. The complainant felt cheated, firstly objected and since the complainant and his family had no other option and tried to select the other pieces of Lehngas but all the Lehngas which were shown to the complainant were second hand used and all the said Lehngas were carrying a lesser value and those Lehngas were not of the same colour and size nor were attractive than said piece of Lehnga. The complainant thereafter told the opposite parties that the payment of Rs.12,000/- which was already taken by the opposite parties as an advance be got refunded immediately but the opposite parties without accepting the genuine request of the complainant started misbehaving and abusing in the presence of other customers who were present in the shop. The complainant told the opposite parties that the ceremony "Maiyian" of his daughter was scheduled for 1.5.2014 and the relatives will also be present from the said day onwards. The Mehndi ceremony will also be on the said day and the relatives had already gathered and the ring ceremony and Chunni Charhai and Shagun Ceremony was also scheduled on the same day i.e on 1.5.2014. As such they were unable to come present time and again and as per their promises and representations, the piece of Lehnga which was got selected by the complainant was not required to be given to some other person and the same was required to be made available to the complainant and his family for the above said marriage party function. Thereafter neither the opposite parties returned the advance amount of Rs.12,000/- nor gave the said selected Lehnga to the complainant and rather misbehaved and harassed the complainant which shows that the opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practices, negligence and deficiency in services. The complainant has given Rs.12,000/- as an advance to the opposite parties and the receipt qua the same was also given by the opposite parties in their own handwriting at the time of booking and accordingly the jewelery was also not received since the same was not carrying any value as the same was required to be of the same colour of the Lehnga. Since the complainant had no other alternative, he was forced to purchase a brand new Lehnga from Ganpati Textiles, MBD Market, Jalandhar and the complainant was forced to pay more Rs.70,000/- for purchasing a new Lehnga and the said Lehnga was booked on 29.4.2014 and was delivered on 1.5.2014. At the time, the relatives of the complainant were also speculating that their daughter who was required to perform all the ceremonies on the said day i.e 1.5.2014, was wandering in the market and will attract some miseries after the said function and due to the above said reason, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss and mental agony and physical discomfort. For the above said reason, the complainant assess the damages not less than Rs.2 Lacs on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.70,000/- for purchasing a new Lehnga and Rs.12,000/- for the repayment which was made to the opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the payment of booking amount Rs.12,000/- and further to pay him Rs.70,000/- spent on purchasing a new Lehnga alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant alongwith his wife and her daughter came at the business premises of M/s New Banarsi Lehnga House situated at Bazar Bhairon, and has met the husband of Mrs.Meenu Aggarwal who is prop. of M/s New Banarsi Lehnga House on 15.3.2014 and has booked one Lehnga Red Bull-Bull of net alongwith jewelery and has paid Rs.12,000/- which was to be worn by the daughter of Harish Chander on 2.5.2014 and the delivery date of the said Lehnga was fixed as 28.4.2014. The husband of Meenu Aggarwal namely Arvind Aggarwal (Bindu Aggarwal) has shown the said Lehnga and jewelery to the complainant and his family members on 28.4.2014 and after wearing the same by the daughter of the complainant, the daughter of the complainant told to the opposite party No.1 that everything is OK but there is some minor fitting problem with the Lehnga and the opposite party No.1 after the minor complaint of fitting problem of the Lehnga by the daughter of the complainant has told to the complainant that he will remove the minor fitting problem of the Lehnga within one hour and the complainant can collect the said Lehnga on 29.4.2014. The said complainant on 28.4.2014 has taken away one jewelery set of the value of Rs.15,000/- on rent from the opposite party No.1 with the promise that he will return the entire jewelery set on 4.5.2014 and endorsement regarding taking away the jewelery by the complainant was also endorsed in the receipt dated 28.4.2014 by one of the employee of opposite party No.1. The complainant on 29.4.2014 again came at the business premises of opposite party No.1 and the opposite party has shown the Lehnga after removing some minor fitting problem to the complainant and his daughter and has requested to wear the same but the complainant and his daughter openly told to the opposite parties that he will not take the Lehnga for the purpose of marriage of her daughter as the complainant has purchased the Lehnga for the marriage occasion of his daughter from Ganpati Creation. The opposite party then requested to the complainant that they have prepared the new Lehnga for the marriage of the daughter of the complainant and has spent Rs.45,000/- and in case the complainant will not take the Lehnga from the opposite party then he will suffer a huge business loss as the Lehnga was prepared as per the body fitting of the daughter of the complainant and it will not suite to any other customer in any circumstances. The opposite party further came to know that the complainant will not take the Lehnga on rent from the opposite party as he has already purchased new Lehnga for his daughter on 29.4.2014. The opposite party thereafter requested on many occasion to the complainant to take back the Lehnga prior to the marriage of the daughter of the complainant as the Lehnga which was prepared by the opposite party was only for the daughter of the complainant and no other lady or bride can wear the same but the complainant did not listen to the request of the opposite party. The husband of the Meenu Aggarwal who is prop. of opposite party No.1 then telephoned to the complainant prior to the marriage of the daughter of the complainant and has requested him that he is ready to prepare another same new Lehnga as per his choice by sending the tailor master at the house of the complainant as the tailor master will prepare another same brand new un-stitched Lehnga within five hours at the house of the complainant by his machine but instead of considering to the request of the opposite party, the complainant started claiming that he has purchased Lehnga from some another shop to the tune of Rs.52,000/- on 29.4.2014 and in case the opposite party did not pay the amount of Lehnga i.e Rs.52,000/- and amount of Rs.10,000/- as legal charges of notices and also Rs.15,000/- as booking amount i.e total amount of Rs.77,000/-, threatened for facing the legal consequences in case the opposite party fails to do so. The entire discussion of the complainant with opposite party No.2 was got recorded in the mobile phone of the opposite party No.2 on 16.9.2014 wherein from the discussion recorded in the mobile phone of opposite party No.2, it has been clearly established that it was the complainant who was at fault and opposite party were not at fault in any circumstances with regard to the dispute and the complainant without any reason and cause threatened to involve the opposite party in the false litigation. The opposite party has prepared a CD for the discussion with the complainant on his mobile which shows that the opposite party is totally innocent person and it is the complainant who is guilty of not taking the new Lehnga which was prepared by the opposite party specially for the daughter of the complainant. The original CD having the conversation of the entire dispute is attached. The complainant inspite of repeated request and demand has not returned the jewelery to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to the opposite party till today which was taken by the complainant on rent. The fact regarding the taking of jewelery from the opposite party by the complainant is duly admitted by the complainant in the discussion which is recorded in the mobile phone of the opposite party No.2. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OW2/A and Ex.OW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. It is not disputed that complainant has booked one Lehnga with opposite parties on rent of Rs.12,000/- which was to be worn by the daughter of the complainant on her marriage. It is also not disputed that it was agreed that said Lehnga shall be made available to the complainant on 28.4.2014. Counsel for the complainant contended that when complainant went to the shop of the opposite parties on 28.4.2014 to receive the Lehnga and it was told to him that the selected Lehnga has been given to some other person and they can select some other Lehnga but all Lehngas which were shown to him were second hand and were not of same colour and size nor were attractive. Counsel for the complainant further contended that when complainant asked the opposite parties to refund the advance rent of Rs.12,000/-, the opposite parties refused to refund the same and started misbehaving with him. On the other handset, the version of the opposite parties is that on the date fixed i.e 28.4.2014, the complainant alongwith his daughter came to their shop and after wearing the Lehnga by the daughter of the complainant she told opposite party No.1 regarding some minor fitting problem and opposite party No.1 assured her that the minor fitting problem will be solved within one hour and complainant can collect the said Lehnga on 29.4.2014 i.e next day. Further according to opposite parties, the complainant also booked one jewelery set of value of Rs.15,000/- on rent with promise to return the same on 4.5.2014 after marriage. Further according to opposite parties on 29.4.2014, the complainant came on the business premise of the opposite parties and told them to refund the amount of rent on the ground that for the purpose of his daughter he has already purchased a new Lehnga from M/s Ganpati Creation. We have carefully considered the contentions and version of both the parties. In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant has himself pleaded that opposite parties assured to the complainant and his wife and daughter that above said Lehnga will be made available to them on 28.4.2014 and fitting of the said Lehnga can also be checked on the same day and it will be seen that if some alterations are required, the same could also be done on the same day. So complainant was to visit the business premises of the opposite parties on 28.4.2014 for the purpose of collecting Lehnga and for alterations in it, if necessary. According to the own version of the complainant, he has purchased a new Lehnga from some other shop on 29.4.2014. Ex.C6 is bill regarding purchase of new Lehnga on 29.4.2014 for Rs.47,300/-. As per credit memo Ex.C6 Rs.10,000/- were given in cash and remaining amount of Rs.37,300/- was on credit. The version of the complainant that when on 28.4.2014 he alongwith his wife and daughter went to the shop of opposite parties it was represented that the selected Lehnga has been sold to some other person appears to be afterthought one. It appears that there was change of mind on the part of complainant and his family members to purchase new Lehnga for the marriage of her daughter. This fact find support from the recording made by opposite party No.2 regarding conversation made by him with the complainant. Ex.OP3 is transcript of the CD Ex.O1. From the transcript it appears that opposite parties had even offered to send the tailor with new Lehnga of the same design at the house of the complainant and after stitching the same it shall be delivered to the complainant at his house. From the transcript it is evident that complainant has stated that they went to the opposite parties on 29th. On 29.4.2014, the complainant has already purchased new Lehnga from M/s Ganpat Creation. So it appears that after purchasing new Lehnga complainant demanded the rent amount from the opposite parties but they refused. On the copy of booking slip Ex.O2 it is specifically mentioned that if booking is canceled, the advance shall not be refunded. In para 6 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that complainant was forced to pay Rs.70,000/- for purchasing a new Lehnga and the said Lehnga was booked on 29.4.2014 and was delivered on 1.5.2014. Ex.C6 is credit memo regarding the new Lehnga purchased by the complainant and in it the value of Lehnga alongwith stitching charges is mentioned as Rs.47,300/-. So it appears that complainant has not stated the truth in this regard. As pleaded in para 6 of the complaint that the new Lehnga was booked on 29.4.2014 and delivered on 1.5.2014. As already observed above, from the transcript Ex.OP3 it is clear that opposite parties have offered to send new Lehnga of the same design with the tailor to the house of the complainant and he would deliver the Lehnga after stitching on same day but he refused. In the above circumstances, it appears that complainant wanted to purchase new Lehnga and due to this fact he did not receive the Lehnga booked with opposite parties. As per condition mentioned on the booking slip on cancellation of the booking, the rent amount is not liable to be refunded. So complainant is not entitled to refund of the amount.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jaspal Singh Bhatia

10.06.2015 Member President