Delhi

North

CC/134/2021

KUMKUM - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. WHITE TIGER - Opp.Party(s)

YOGESH SAREEN

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 134/2021

Ms. Kumkum,

D/o Late Sh. Rajinder Singh

R/o 14/19, East Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008                                                                             …Complainant

                                                          VS

M/s White Tiger

Having its registered office at:

UConcepts Solutions LLP

405-B, 4^th Floor,

Pinncle Tower, Behind The Artium Hotel

Suraj Kund Road,

Faridabad-121001, Haryana

                                     

Having its Store (Franchisee Dry cleaning shop)

At: 11/23, Ground Floor, Main Market,

East Patel Nagar, Delhi-110008                                                …Opposite Party

         

ORDER

01/02/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

The present complaint has been filed under Section 35, of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by the Complainant, Ms. Kumkum, against M/s White Tiger, having its registered office at UConcepts Solutions LLP and Franchisee Store at 11/5 East Patel Nagar New Delhi, with the prayer for compensation of                Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of mental agony.

Facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that, on 19.03.2021, the Complainant gave a “quilt” to OP for dry cleaning. A tax invoice no. 543 with order no. WT013-0559 for Rs.300/- was issued. The Complainant was assured about the quality of service by the OP.

          The Complainant has stated that the said quilt was gifted to her by a close relation on the occasion of her birthday but at the time of taking delivery, the Complainant was shocked to see that it was badly damaged. It has been further stated by the Complainant that the OP realising their mistake promised the Complainant a refund within 10 days.

          Even after a lapse of the above said period and several visits, the OP instead of settling the matter not only threatened the Complainant with dire consequences but even misbehaved. The Complainant has alleged that the act of OP by damaging the quilt, depriving the Complainant from the use of the quilt and misbehaviour has caused great mental agony which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

          Legal notice dated 13.04.2021 was served upon OP, calling them to pay damages, which was neither replied nor complied with. The Complainant has stated that she was deprived of the use and enjoyment of the quilt and moreover in the month of April 2021 as there was a lockdown due to pandemic (Covid-19), only essential items were available in the market and online, thus it was impossible to purchase a new quilt or even the blanket. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the OP, the present complaint.

The Complainant has annexed with the complaint: tax invoice dated 19.03.2021 bearing no. 543 with order no. WT013-0559 for Rs.300/- , photographs of the damaged quilt and CD showing chat between the son of the Complainant and the employee of the OP and transcript thereof.

          Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP.

Thereafter, Written Statement was filed, where they have taken preliminary objections such as: the claim of the Complainant was overvalued and exaggerated; the Complainant had not produced bill/invoice of the quilt; the OP as a goodwill gesture had accepted the minor damage and had offered 10 times the value of the service charge i.e. Rs.3,000/- as well as the repair of the quilt.

          They have denied the service of Legal notice dated 13.04.2021 and submitted that there was nationwide lockdown during that period. They have further submitted that it is highly improbable that during the month of April, 2021 to June, 2021 there was any occasion to use the quilt when the temperature in Delhi was around 40℃. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied with the prayer for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary cost.

          They have filed the certified true copy of the Board Resolution dated 15.12.2021 in favour of Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Manager.

          Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP was filed by the Complainant, where the contents of the complaint have been reiterated and those of the Written Statement have been denied. It was submitted that the Complainant had requested the Manager of the outlet, namely Mr. Amit, to collect the quilt from her home after paying for the same but neither did they settle nor came to collect the quilt. In rebuttal to the submission of the OP, it was submitted that the said quilt/AC comforter was used by the Complainant while sleeping in AC.

          Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties. The Complainant has got herself examined as CW-1 and Sh. Yogesh Sarin, as CW-2. It has been deposed by the Complainant that she was informed by Mr. Amit, that a cheque in lieu of settlement would be sent to the Complainant as their Manager, Mr. Ranjit would be sending the cheque at the shop after signatures. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been repeated on oath.

          The complainant has also got examined Sh. Yogesh Sarin, her son as CW-2. He has stated that he had accompanied the Complainant, when the quilt/AC comforter in dispute was given to OP for dry cleaning. He had visited at least 4 times to collect the item but every time he was requested to wait for two more days. He has further deposed that the comforter was folded from the opposite side and he noticed that it was torn from the upper side. Mr. Amit, the Manager of OP also admitted his mistake and promised the refund within 10 days. He has relied on the telephonic conversation filed along with the complaint.

          Sh. Ranjeet Kumar, Manager, M/s White Tiger, 11/5, Opposite HDFC Bank, East Patel Nagar has been examined on behalf of OP. He has deposed on oath the contents of their Written Statement. He has got exhibited the copy of the Board Resolution as EX.RW1/1. He has submitted that the OP had offered Rs.3,000/- as damages and has got the copy of invoice exhibited as EX.RW1/2. He has also got the price quotation available online at the site of “Amazon” where the new quilt of Portico brand is available for Rs. 2,500/- and has got it exhibited as EX.RW1/3. He has further deposed that the dispute could have been resolved, by either providing a new quilt of the same quality or an amount equivalent to the price available but the same was not acceptable to the complainant.

 We have heard the arguments of the Complainant, appearing in person and the Ld. Counsel for OP. We have also gone through the written submission and perused the material placed on record.

          The factum of availing services of OP by the Complainant and damage to the quilt/AC comforter are not in dispute. It has been admitted by both the parties that the OP had offered Rs.3,000/-, being 10  times the amount of invoice dated 19.03.2021. Even during the proceedings OP had offered twice the value of the quilt available at Amazon (EX.RW1/3), which was unacceptable to the Complainant. Thus, the issue before us is with respect to the quantum of compensation which the complainant is entitled to on account of act/omission on the part of OP in rendering their services.

          In the support of their allegation, the Complainant has relied upon the conversation between Sh. Yogesh Sarin, CW-2 and Mr. Amit, employee of OP. The Complainant reiterated that the said quilt/AC comforter, which was damaged by OP, was gifted to her on the occasion of the birthday; therefore, she had emotional sentiments associated with it.

We have also gone through the photographs annexed with the complaint; the said quilt/comforter is damaged. Once, the product was given to the OP for dry cleaning, OP was duty bound to take due care of the product and return the same without any damage, which is not so in the present complaint. Damaging the quilt/comforter amounts to fault and imperfection in the services rendered by the OP. Therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in services on part of OP.

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we direct OP to pay a compensation of Rs.7,500/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant on account of deficiency in services.

This order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order else Rs.7,500/- shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

          Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order also be uploaded on the website. 

Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta) Member

                                        (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

President