J U D G E M E N T

Sri Subhabrata Chaudhuri, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case in brief is that he is a resident of Flat No.2A/2, Barsona Apartment, Khaprail Road, P.O. & P.S.- Matigara, Dist.- Darjeeling and the sole opposite party is a tailor carrying on business under the name & style of “NEW STYLE KHAN TAILORS”, Shop No. H/0041, situated at City Centre, P.O. & P.S.-Matigara, Dist.-Darjeeing.  The complainant on 20.12.2015 visited the OP shop at the above mentioned address for getting a suit cloth stitched for preparation of coat pant.  Measurement was taken by the Proprietor of the OP and the delivery date was given on 29.12.2015 vide cash Memo No.1532 dated 20.12.2015.  Thereafter, complainant paid an advance of 1,000/- only against out of the total bill of Rs.3,500/- as per desire of the OP.  The complainant was called for trial on 27.12.2015 by the OP.  Complainant went to that shop but the suit was not ready and complainant was advised to come on 28.12.2015.  On 28.12.2015 when complainant visited the shop on that date also suit was not ready.  Again proprietor of the OP shop told complainant to come on 30.12.2015 and complainant accordingly went to the shop on 31.12.2015, but the suit was given to the complainant not to his size and fitting and further OP told the complainant that he would not be able to deliver the suit on the given date and required some more time to make changes and the proprietor of the OP would deliver the suit only on 07.01.2016 and thereafter complainant visited the OP shop again on 07.01.2015.  The proprietor of the OP again told the complainant that the suit was not ready and complainant would have to visit again the shop to see the fitting of the coat and pant.  Complainant visited the shop on 15.01.2016 to check the fittings but proprietor OP failed to finish the suit and for this reason complainant had to travelled four times from Malbazar to Matigara as per direction of OP-Proprietor for giving trial.  The complainant had a plan to wear the suit on the occasion of new year party of Group AGM and also had a plan for wearing the same in a marriage ceremony in the month of January, 2016 but due to gross deficiency of service of the OP he was unable to wear the same on the said occasion.  Lastly, on 08.02.2016 when the complainant went to the OP he was abused and complainant asked OP as to when the suit would be delivered by him to the complainant.  It is further contended in the petition of complainant that finding no other alternative he got a lawyer’s notice issued by his duly appointed lawyer Sri Bijoy Saha on 27.02.2016 to the OP by Speed Post with A/D which was duly received by the OP.  After receipt of the lawyer’s letter OP verbally assured the complainant that he would remove the defects in stitching of the suit within a short time but OP failed to do so and ultimately being aggrieved by the unethical and negligent attitude of the OP complainant had to initiate this case.  The complainant has prayed for refund of advance money amounting Rs.1,000/-, cost of the cloth amounting Rs.4,000/-, an order of compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant amounting Rs.10,000/-, a sum of Rs.8,000/- being the cost of travelling from Malbazar four times to visit the OP shop and a litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

It appears from Order No.4 dated 13.02.2017 that despite of proper service OP did not take any steps and on the next date and even on the date after that next date while OP continuously did not take any steps by virtue of Order No.6 dated 18.04.2017 it was fixed for exparte hearing.  The complainant on 08.02.2018 in support of his case furnished his evidence by way of affidavit-in-chief and on the self same date also furnished a written argument from his side. 

The moot question which arises for determination of this case is whether the complainant is a consumer or not or as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or not and the other questions which are also important to note as to whether the complainant had right cause of action to initiate this case.  The points of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction are also required to be looked into and lastly it is to be determined as to whether the instant case is barred by limitation or not as per provision of The C.P. Act, 1986.

Complainant has furnished one document which is one cash memo dated 20.12.2015 as carbon copy from the original cash memo.

From the said cash memo it appears the piece of cloth which was received on 20.12.2015 by New Style Khan Tailors has been written to be delivered on 29.12.2015.  In the column particulars the measurement of the proposed garment stitched has been there written by the person who with signature prepared the said cash memo. 

On consideration of the petition of complaint, evidence by affidavit of the complainant and the above mentioned document it appears to us that complainant rightly had handed over the cloth piece for the purpose of stitching of his coat and pant by the OP.  The case has been filed within two years from the date of actual cause of action.  No doubt the instant case is within pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  There is no doubt in it that the complainant is a bonafide consumer under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Deficiency in service after scrutiny of all the relevant materials on case record is undoubtedly established against the OP as it is palpably clear from the four corners of the case record that many times complainant visited the OP shop but of no result and he returned in empty hand without getting the suit cloth piece stitched by the OP properly.  The advocate’s letter is also found from the case record which complainant sent to the OP intimating his grievance but OP did not bother to reply the same. 

Complainant from cash memo it reveals advanced a sum of Rs.1,000/- as against the manufacturing or stitching charge of the proposed coat and pant and naturally complainant has prayed for refund of the said advance amount of Rs.1,000/-.  Cost of cloth has been mentioned as Rs.4,000/- that has also been claimed by the complainant and the other claims in the form of prayer has been made by the complainant as Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively as against harassment and mental agony, against cost of travelling from Malbazar four times to visit the OP shop and as litigation cost.  In absence of any contra evidence adduced and produced from the side of the OP on careful consideration of the case of the complainant we have no hesitation to hold that complainant has been able to prove his case and thus he is entitled to get some of the reliefs as have been mentioned in the petition of complaint by him.  Complainant is entitled to get refund of advance amount paid by him to the OP amounting Rs.1,000/- as well as the cost of the cloth amounting Rs.4,000/-.  We are of the considered view to pass an order of compensation at the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant against the OP for complainant’s harassment and mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation while a sum of Rs.1,000/- further is awarded to the complainant as travelling cost of him for his repeated visit to OP’s shop which totals a sum of Rs.21,000/-.

In the result, complaint succeeds in part.

Proper fee paid.

Hence, it is

                      O R D E R E D

that the instant Consumer Case No.115/S/2016 be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP with cost mentioned herein below. 

Complainant do get an award of Rs.1,000/- toward refund of advance money from OP and another sum of Rs.4,000/- is for cost of cloth which was handed over by him to the OP, Rs.5,000/- is awarded on account of as compensation against harassment and mental agony and further sum of Rs.1,000/- as travelling cost for repeated visit to OP’s shop and lastly Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation cost totaling Rs.21,000/- (Twenty one thousand rupees) only.

OP is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order in default the amount of award will carry interest @ 10% per annum till its full realization.

The complainant will be at liberty to put the decree/order in execution if the same is not complied with by the OP within above mentioned stipulated time.  

A copy of the order be given to the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the OP at once by process server.