Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/203/2023

KUMUD DESIGNS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIDHI JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

KUNAL GARG

30 Jan 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	203 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	22.08.2023
Date of Decision	:	30.01.2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kumud Designs, B38, 1^st Floor, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi – 110015 through its Prop.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Nidhi Jain W/o Asim Jain, R/o #1118, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh – 160015.

...Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Kunal Garg, Advocate for the appellant (on VC).

Sh. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   This appeal has been preferred by the opposite party (appellant herein) feeling dissatisfied with order dated 17.07.2023 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’) vide which, Consumer Complaint No.413 of 2021 was allowed.

2]                The factual scenario lies in a narrow compass. Mrs. Nidhi Jain, complainant (respondent herein) had purchased some dress/outfit from the appellant for wearing at the time of marriage to be held in April 2021 for total sum of ₹55,000/-. She also ordered one more dress for her daughter.

3]                Order Receipt/Invoice bearing No.391 dated 02.03.2021, Annexure A-5, was issued wherein delivery date was mentioned as 02.04.2021. Similarly, another Order Receipt/Invoice bearing No.392 of the same date i.e. 02.03.2021, Annexure A-6, was issued with same date of delivery as 02.04.2021.

4]                The dispute is regarding Order Receipt/Invoice bearing No.391 dated 02.03.2021, Annexure A-5 for total sum of ₹55,000/-. According to the complainant, the dress was to be delivered up-to 02.04.2021 but the same was in-fact delivered on 03.05.2021 i.e. much after the date of marriage and much after the committed date of delivery of the said dress. Therefore, the complainant had sought compensation of ₹2,50,000/- alongwith ₹5,000/- as costs.

5]                The complaint was contested by the opposite party, inter alia, on the ground that the delivery of the dress could not be made due to complete lockdown due to second wave of Covid-19 and the proprietor of the opposite party also suffered infection of Covid-19 as his report, Annexure R-1, was positive. It is also stated that in the Order Receipt/Invoice issued by the opposite party, delivery date was not mentioned.

6]                We have heard the counsels for the parties and have gone through the material available on record and the written arguments of the parties, very carefully.

7]                First of all, coming to the argument with regard to suffering with Covid-19 infection by the Proprietor of the appellant, it may be stated here that two dresses were ordered by the respondent, first vide Order Receipt/Invoice bearing No.391 dated 02.03.2021, Annexure A-5 and second vide Order Receipt/Invoice bearing No.392 dated 02.03.2021, Annexure A-6. The delivery date in both the Order Receipts/Invoices is mentioned as 02.04.2021. Out of them, one dress was received in time but the second dress was received only on 03.05.2021. The Proprietor of the appellant/opposite party was not infected with Covid-19 up-to 02.04.2021 the committed date for delivery of the dress. As regards the claim of the appellant/opposite party in Para 2(F) of the reply that its Proprietor was found positive for Covid-19 on 16.04.2021 as per report, Annexure R-1, it may be stated here that no such report has been placed on record of the District Commission and rather, it is simply mentioned in Para 2(F). Thus, considering from all angles, we are of the view that the Proprietor of the appellant/opposite party was not infected with Covid-19 up-to 02.04.2021.

8]                It has been argued before us that in Order Receipt/Invoice bearing No.391 dated 02.03.2021, Annexure A-5, the date of delivery is not mentioned. We have considered this contention. Generally, when tailors/Boutiques issue a Bill/Invoice, the date of delivery is mentioned therein. In Order Receipt/Invoice bearing No.391, below the date “02/03/21”, one more date is mentioned i.e. “2/04/21”. The appellant/opposite party had issued this invoice under signatures of its authorized signatory. There is no explanation as to why the date of 02.04.2021 was given. Thus, inference can be easily drawn that in this document, Annexure A-5, the date “2/04/21” was mentioned for delivery of the dress, which was not given to the respondent/complainant on the said date. Thus, the District Commission rightly held deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellant/opposite party and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that the respondent/complainant shall return the dress to the appellant/opposite party as per directions of the District Commission already given in its order.

9]                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.

10]               Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

11]               File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

30.01.2024.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad