Haryana

Kaithal

CC/315/2023

Mr. Nitin Chhabra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muktsari Akal Fashion & Designer's Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Meenakshi Sharma

23 Feb 2024

ORDER

                    

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

  

                                                               Complaint Case No. 315 of 2023.

                                                               Date of institution:   22.11.2023.

                                                               Date of decision:      23.02.2024.

 

Nitin Chhabra s/o Shri Ashok Kumar, r/o H.No.121/16, Friends Colony, near Hanuman Vatika, Gali No.3/4, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

Muktsari Akal Fashion & Designer’s Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.400/11, Ground Floor, Opp. Khurana Petrol Pump, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Authorized Person.

...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:       Ms. Meenakshi Chhabra, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Opposite Party ex-parte.

                     

ORDER - SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, 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 the clothes in village Rajound for Rs.5500/- and after that he along with his family given the said clothes to OP for stitching the kurta pajama for himself as well as shirt for his son. That the OP after measurement, issued a slip No.1476 & 1477 dated 28.09.2023 with delivery date i.e. 08.10.2023 and he paid the cash money of Rs.1100/- to OP. That when he along with his family members visited to OP shop for get his stitched garments, then he found that kurta pajama and shirt was not well stitched, according to measurement, by the OP. That in good faith, he again given garments to OP for stitching of kurta pajama and pent and paid Rs.1500/- to OP, who issued slip No.1511 & 1512 dated 09.10.2023, but again when he visited the OP and wears the stitched garments, then he found that the pajama was too tight, pocket of kurta is also stitched without any hole of pocket as well as pajama was burnt like cigarette etc. in the bottom. That he made complaints to OP in this regard, who misbehaved with him. That he approached the OP many times with a request to replace burnt pajama with new one or give the price of its cloth, but he refused to pay the same. 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. 22.12.2023, 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-C8 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 the clothes in village Rajound for Rs.5500/- and after that he along with his family given the said clothes to OP for stitching the kurta pajama for himself as well as shirt for his son, who after measurement, issued a slip No.1476 & 1477 dated 28.09.2023 with delivery date i.e. 08.10.2023 and the complainant paid the cash money of Rs.1100/- to OP. She further argued that the OP had not stitched the clothes as per measurement. She further argued that in good faith, the complainant again given garments to OP for stitching of kurta pajama and pent and paid Rs.1500/- to OP, who issued slip No.1511 & 1512 dated 09.10.2023, but again when the complainant visited the OP and wears the stitched garments, then he found that the pajama was too tight, pocket of kurta is also stitched without any hole of pocket as well as pajama was burnt like cigarette etc. in the bottom. She further argued that the complainant made complaints to OP in this regard, but all in vain. She further argued that the above act and conduct of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service.

7.                After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the documentary evidence, produced by the complainant, we found that the complainant has come to this Commission with the plea that he purchased the clothes from village Rajound of Rs.5500/-, vide bill dated 25.09.2023 Mark-A, and after that he visited the OP, on two different dates and given the said clothes for stitching of two kurta pajama, one shirt and one pent and the OP issued firstly, he visited the OP on 28.09.2023 and given the said clothes for stitching one kurta pajama and one shirt, who issued slip Nos.1476 & 1477 dated 28.09.2023 Annexure C-4 and C1 and 1511 and 1512 Annexure C-3 and C-2 respectively. As per complainant, on first time on 28.09.2023, he paid Rs.1100/- and Rs.1500/- on second time on 09.10.2023.

8.                The grievance of the complainant is that when he wears the stitched garments, then he found that the pajama was too tight, pocket of kurta is also stitched without any hole of pocket as well as pajama was burnt like cigarette etc. in the bottom and in this regard, he made complaints to OP, who misbehaved with him and the OP neither returned the clothes nor refund the cost price, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OP. However, when the OP failed to redress his grievance, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 15.11.2023 Annexure C-5, to the OP through registered post vide postal receipt Annexure C-6, which was received back with the report of “Refused” Annexure C-7.

9.                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 complainant ex-parte proved.

10.              Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant purchased the clothes for himself and his family members in Rs.5500/- and then, given the same to OP for stitching, after paying total Rs.2600/- (1100+1500), who not only stitched the same as per measurement but also burnt one pajama from the same, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OP. As per complainant, the said clothes are still lying with the OP, therefore, the OP not only liable to pay the cost price of the clothes amounting to Rs.5500/- to the complainant, but also liable to refund the stitches charges of Rs.2600/-, to the complainant along with compensation and litigation expenses.

11.              Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.5500/- + Rs.2600/-, total Rs.8100/-, to the complainant alongwith compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. 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.

12.              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.:23.02.2024.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.