The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant gave one suit for Dry cleaning to the Opposite party on 10.12.2013
and the Op granted one receipt being no.51715 dated 10.12.2013 for Rs.143/- towards the dry cleaning charges of the suit in question mentioning delivery date as on 16.12.2013. The further case of the complainant is that he went to the shop of the Op on 16.12.2013 to take delivery of the said suit and detected that some portion/part of the coat/Blazer as well as of pant/Trouser is defaced/discolored. The complainant shown the spot to the oP. The owner of the shop/firm Mr. Partho Chatterjee told the complainant to come after seven days after taking the delivery receipt /slip bearing no.51715 dated 10.12.2013. The complainant paid full amount of Rs.1431/- against said bill no.51715 to the oP. On 28.12.2013 when the complainant went to the shop of the Op no.1 to take delivery of the suit the owner of the said shop/firm Mr.Partho Chaterjee who bluntly refused to entertain any claim and/or charge of defect/discoloured occurred in the said coat/Blazer and Pant/Trouser at all. Hence, this complaint filed by the complainant praying for relief as mentioned in the petition of complaint .
The Op no.1 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the Op no.1 is that at the time of handing over the alleged coat and pant to the Op no.1, it has been detected that
said articles are defective and the said matter has been properly recorded in the receipt. The copy of said receipt has been supplied to the petitioner. Petitioner had/has every knowledge regarding the said defect of the alleged coat and pant but the petitioner intentionally with ulterior motive and wrongful gain filed the present petition with cock and bull stories having no basis at all. The petitioner did not /does not receive the alleged coat and pant from the Opposite party no.1 with a motive to black mail and harass the Op no.1. Hence, the oP no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
The Proforma Op no.2 contested the case by filing Written version and submits that the material was purchased on 6.4.2013 by the complainant from its shop at Avani Mall, 32, Jagat Banerjee Ghat road, Howrah vide their Bill no.S/13/20 and the complainant was fully satisfied with the material and no objection whatsoever has ever raised regarding the services or its quality provided by the Proforma defendant. The Proforma defendant states that unless prayers as sought forth are granted the proforma defendant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Complainant filed copy of receipt of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. , copy of receipt of Stylo, copy of bill no.51715 dated 16.12.13, copy of advocate’s letter dated 10.2.14 and 24.2.2014. Op no.1 file3d bill in the name of D.Singh dated 10.12.2013 in original, copy of Membership certificate in the name of Sri Partha Chatterjee, copy of enlistment of renewal for the year 2011-12, copy of certificate of enlistment of renewal for the year 2012-13, copy of certificate of enlistment of renewal for the year 2013-14. Proforma Op filed no documents except Written version and Evidence in chief. Complainant and Op no.1 filed Evidence in chief and Written Notes of Argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
It is admitted fact that the complainant gave the suit to the shop of the Op no.1 for dry cleaning and paid the cost. So the complainant is a consumer under
the Op U/s 2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act, 1986. Thus, the point no.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 and 3
Both the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
The whole crux of this case is that the complainant gave the pant and suit to the op Dry Cleaner who took it under receipt no.51715 dated 16.12.2013 and charge was given Rs.143/- under receipt filed by the complainant. Allegation is that Op defaced some portion of the Blazer/Coat as well as of pant trouser by using excess chemical. The op contradicted this allegation. Op stated he has done no defaced as alleged. The coat was spotted as per Op’s statement and as per the receipt filed by the complainant. Moreover the op has deposited the coat and pant in this Forum on 20.6.2016. That coat and pant is in our custody. We opened the packet and examined the same in presence of our Registrar, myself , Members Sri Samaresh Basu, P.A. Ashis Guha Thakurta and Peskar Sri Subhasish Rana and we found no damage , no spot in the coat and pant. There was no spot or defaced of any colour of pant and coat. The coat and pant is of same colour deposited on 20.6.2016. On the premises above, we are of opinion that no further elaboration of discuss is necessary where the material shows that there is no
damage or spot. Accordingly, there is no merit in the complainant’s allegation and we find no deficiency in service of oP. So , the case of the complainant fails. Hence it is –
ORDERED
That the CC case no. 155 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
