Delhi

East Delhi

CC/81/2015

VIBHOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NOVER - Opp.Party(s)

11 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  81/15

 

Shri Vibhor Aggarwal

R/o B-173, 1^st Floor

Vivek Vihar Phase – I

Delhi – 110 092                                                                                 ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Novex Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Manager Director

Regd. Off.: Plots 1 & 2, B

Behing GPO, Kashmere Gate

Delhi – 110 006

 

2. Mr. Uma Shanker

Shop No. G-7, Local Shopping Centre

Plots 4, Savita Vihar Market, Delhi – 110 092                            ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 16.02.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 11.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 18.04.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Vibhor Aggarwal against Novex Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), and Mr. Uma Shanker (OP-2) praying for directions to OP to refund the cost of the clothes amounting to Rs. 70,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony & pain and             Rs. 25,000/- cost of litigation. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant handed over 9 clothes for dry cleaning to Shri Uma Shanker, (OP-2), agent of OP-1 for which a total bill of Rs. 1,340/- was raised against voucher no. 57300 and 57298 dated 06.04.2014 with delivery date of 11.04.2014.  On 13.04.2014, the complainant went to OP-2 to collect the clothes.  He was shocked that the clothes were not ready and in an unwearable condition.  OP-2 assured the complainant that the clothes shall be made ready and the defects would be removed.  He requested the complainant to collect the clothes after 4 days, but even after 4 days, the respondent could not remove the defects from the clothes.  Thus, the complainant has prayed for refund Rs. 70,000/- as cost of clothes,          Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony & pain and Rs. 25,000/- cost of litigation

3.         No WS was filed by OP.

4.         In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined himself on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

            In defence, OP-1submitted the reply in which they have stated that they made several telephone calls to the complainant on 19^th, 24^th, 27^th May and 1^st October 2015 and sent letters on 27^th May and 12^th September 2015, but the complainant did not attend/answer the same.  The complainant asked to give back seven clothes without paying proportionate cleaning charges and without surrendering original receipts or without giving written acknowledgement for seven clothes; he never visited to OP to collect two re-washed clothes.  Other facts have also been denied. 

            Copy of booking voucher no. 57928 dated 06.04.2015, copy of booking voucher no. 57300 dated 06.04.2015, terms and condition of laundry work, copy of legal notice received on behalf of the complainant, para-wise comments on legal notice sent to advocate of the complainant and postal receipts annexed with reply.    

.           We have heard both the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The first and foremost argument, which has been advanced on behalf of the complainant, has been that since no WS was filed on behalf of OPs, their reply in response to the evidence of the complainant should not be considered.  He has further argued that even the reply was not in the form of evidence on affidavit.  He has also argued that the terms and conditions, which have been put on record by OPs were unilateral which were not binding on the complainant. 

            On the other hand, OPs have argued that no doubt, they have not filed the WS and the evidence, their reply in response to the evidence of the complainant should be considered.  He has further argued that terms and conditions, though unilateral, were binding on the complainant. 

Coming to the first argument that OPs have not filed the WS and their reply in response to the complaint should not be considered, no doubt OPs have not filed the WS and they have filed the reply in response to the complainant’s evidence, their reply in response to the complainant’s evidence has to be considered as the technicalities should not come in the way of substantive justice.

            Further, with regard to terms and conditions, certainly, they are unilateral in nature and even if the complainant have accepted those terms and conditions, the unilateral terms and conditions have to be applied appropriately.  Therefore, the terms and conditions put on record on behalf of OP have to be considered appropriately.  Admittedly, the clothes of the complainant have been damaged, though OPs have denied the same.  When the clothes have been damaged, one of the condition states that “In the event of loss or damage, for which the company may be liable, it will have the option of either replacing or repairing the garment or the part damaged or lost.  However, the Company’s liability for loss or damage shall be limited to 10 (ten) times the amount charged for the cleaning of the garment.”  From this condition, which is a unilateral one, it comes out that the liability of the company for loss or damage shall be limited to 10(ten) times, the amount charged.  The amount charged by OPs have been stated to be Rs. 1,340/-.  If this condition is applied, the amount for loss or damage comes to an amount of Rs. 13,400/-, which seems to be a very meagre amount for seven clothes.  However, it is the case of OP that it is the complainant who has not taken the seven clothes, which he agreed to accept on having his two clothes re-washed.  The company has been willing to re-wash two clothes which are stated to have been damaged, after getting the same re-washed from any other drycleaner for which the company has been willing to pay the cost.

            Thus, from the evidence and the documents on record, it comes out that even if there was damage, it was only in respect of two pullovers, which the company accepted to re-wash the same.  Thus, there was deficiency on the part of OPs.  Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the complaint, it is ordered that OP shall hand over seven clothes after getting it re-washed.  In addition, two pullovers are stated to have got damaged.  Thus, all the nine clothes be returned to the complainant on having re-washed.  The complainant shall not have to pay for re-washing the clothes.  Further the company shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-.  If the complainant does not accept the re-washed clothes alongwith Rs.10,000/-, the company shall pay the lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the cost of the clothes.  The order be complied within a period of 30 days, failing which it will carry 9% interest from the date of order till its realisation. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                  Member                

     

 

  

   (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President