Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 693
Instituted on : 12.12.2019
Decided on : 22.02.2024.
Tejvir Saroha age 32 years, s/o Sh. Dharambir Singh, R/o VPO Madina Korsan Tehsil Meham District Rohtak(Haryana).
………………….Complainant
Vs.
Muskan Collection, Quilla Road, Rohtak-124001 through its proprietor.
- ….Respondent/Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Prinkal Khurana, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Anshu Bhutani, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is consumer of respondent as he had purchased a 4 piece Suit(coat-pant of Green Colour-size 40) for Rs.4200/- from the opposite party’s shop on dated 09.11.2019 and respondent have issued a receipt no.23813 to the complainant. After purchasing the above mentioned suit, respondent assured the complainant to get fitted the same, took the measurement of complainant and get it on same day. Complainant approached in evening to get the above suit because he had to attend a marriage function on 12.11.2019, but the complainant was surprised when he wore this suit as there was no fitting applied/made as per requirement to the complainant and no tie was provided with this suit as per promise. Due to the improper fitting of the suit, complainant was not able to wear the same and he purchased new suit for attending marriage ceremony. Complainant served a legal notice dated 27.11.2019 to the respondent through registered post but to no effect. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.4200/- as value of suit along with interest @ 18% from the date of purchasing the suit, till its realisation, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the respondent after trial of the said suit, got its delivery and it was perfectly fit to him and he was fully satisfied and happy with the fitting of the said suit. It is also submitted that a tie was also provided to him. However after attending the marriage function, the complainant wanted to return the said suit, and to get the money back, which is totally against the fair business. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, document Ex.CW1/A and closed his evidence on 14.09.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read as affidavit and closed his evidence on 19.07.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, as per the complainant he purchased a suit from the opposite party to wear the same in a function and gave it for fitting but when he wear it at the time of function, he found that it was not properly fitted, due to which he could not wear the same in function and has suffered mental agony and financial loss. To prove the same complainant has placed on record a bill Ex.CW1/A. On the other hand contention of the opposite party is that a properly fitted suit was given to the complainant on 09.11.2019 but the complainant after using the same in the function, tried to return the same.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The perusal of bill Ex.CW1/A shows that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.4200/- to the respondent on account of 4 piece suit 40 No. size and receipt has been issued by the respondent. But to prove the contention that the suit was unfit to the complainant, he has not placed on record any evidence. The complainant could have easily placed on record the photograph of himself after wearing the said suit to show that the fitting of the suit was not proper. But the complainant failed to place on record the same. Merely on the basis of issuance of bill it cannot be presumed that respondent has not handed over fitted suit to the complainant. Moreover, complainant has also not placed on record any bill to prove that he had purchased another suit for the function. Hence in the absence of any evidence complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
