| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SHAKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20 DWARKA NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/212/18 Date of Institution:-24.05.2018 Order Reserved on:-10.05.2023 Date of Decision: 29.05.2023 In the matter of Mrs Ameeta Satsangi W/o C-5 60 F.F. Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070 …….Complainant V/s Om Laundromat Through owner Mr. Shekhar D-70-A Opp. B-8/9 Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070 ……Opposite Party O R D E R Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member - Admitted facts of the present Complaint are that the Complainant entrusted three articles of clothes to the O.P., including a saree, a blouse and a pair of trousers for drycleaning on 27.1.2017. The clothes were to be collected on 31.01.2017 erroneously written as 31.07.2017 by the Complainant in her Complaint. A receipt was generated by the O.P. for the amount of Rs.368.00 on 27.1.2017 annexed as Annexure C-1.
- While travelling to Jaipur, the Complainant received a message on her phone from the O.P. that her saree was already in a dreadful condition. The Complainant alleges that after this message, the O.P. did not speak to her regarding her saree. She has annexed the photographs of the saree before and after dry cleaning as Annexure C-2.
- The Complainant states that she called the O.P. on 6.2.2017 after returning from Jaipur, enquiring about the status of her clothes. She was allegedly informed by the O.P. that her saree had malfunctioned during dry cleaning by the O.P. worker, causing the saree to bleed colour in such a way that the black colour of the saree had spread to the white part of the saree. She was assured that the O.P. was ready to repay/compensate the Complainant for the saree if she submitted the bill/invoice on the actual cost of the saree.
- The Complainant immediately visited the shop of the O.P. with the bill. But the O.P. refused to address her grievance, denying a refund of the actual cost of the saree they had destroyed and instead blamed her for the condition of the saree. She also states that she had shown the O.P. that the saree was in good condition on 26.1.2017 when she wore it for a function but to no avail. The Complainant has annexed the copy of the receipt/bill amounting to Rs.25,000/- of the designer saree as Annexure C-3.
- When the O.P. refused to act on her request despite making several calls to the O.P., she wrote a letter dated 16.2.2017 towards reimbursement of the cost of the saree as per the bill presented by her of Rs.25,000/-. She also issued a legal notice dated 27.3.2013 to the O.P. (Annexure C-5) to no avail.
- Alleging deficiency in service, the Complainant filed the present Complaint before this Forum U/S 12, of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying for directions to the O.P. to return the cost of the saree for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for injury, loss, severe harassment and defamation along with Rs.25,000/- towards legal expenses.
- Notice was issued to the O.P., who appeared and filed the reply. In their reply, the O.P. stated that undoubtedly the O.P. had accepted the three articles of clothing from the Complainant for drycleaning on 27.1.2017. They were to be delivered after dry cleaning on 31.1.2017 to the Complainant. However, a message was sent to Complainant regarding the condition of the saree at 3.07 PM on 3.2.2017, wherein it was clarified that the O.P. could not process the clothes of the Complainant due to the dreadful state of the saree. It was also mentioned that the O.P. tried calling the Complainant but received no response. In the message sent to her, a callback was also requested so that the O.P. could process the clothes of the Complainant. A copy of the screenshot is annexed as Annexure OP-1 with the reply. The O.P. further states that finding no other option, the O.P. sent a message for prior approval to process the Complainant's clothes. In the absence of her explicit consent, O.P. could not process the dry cleaning of her clothes.
- The Complainant visited the shop of the O.P. and was apprised and intimated about the condition of the saree and also that the O.P. had not drycleaned her clothes due to lack of approval sent to her via a text message which the Complainant did not pay any heed to. Instead, the Complainant blamed the O.P. for spoiling the saree and demanding a refund of the saree's cost.
- The O.P. also contends that the Complainant is not a consumer U/S 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act as no services were provided due to want of her prior approval. The present Complaint is, therefore, only a means to extort money from the O.P.
- The Complainant filed her rejoinder, pointing out that the O.P. filed the reply after the expiry of the limitation period as prescribed under the Act. After receiving the copy of the Complaint from the Forum on 5.7.2018, the O.P. filed the reply only on 14.9.2018; hence, the same is time-barred. She also filed her affidavit in evidence, reiterating what was already stated in her Complaint. The O.P. filed the testimony of Mr Shekhar, owner of O.P. Laundromat, who repeated his averments as made in his reply. Both parties filed their written arguments. The Complainant also filed a catena of judgment to support her contention.
- None appeared on the date fixed for final arguments. However, the case is 2018, we feel it prudent to reserve the present complaint for orders due to the long pendency of the case. The Complainant gave three articles of clothes to the O.P. Laundromat for drycleaning on 27.1.2017, including one saree, one blouse and one trouser. The O.P., on receipt of the above articles, issued a bill/invoice dated 27.1.2017 (Annexure C-1) wherein the Complainant was to pay Rs.368/- for the dry clean service to the O.P. The delivery date mentioned on the generated receipt is 31.1.17 after 6 PM.
- The Complainant states that she received a message on 3.2.2017 from the O.P. wherein she was informed that her saree was not in good condition and O.P. had found minor cut/hole/colour bleed in her clothes, asking for approval from her to process the clothes. The copy/screenshot of the message is annexed on Page 2 of the Complaint, wherein the O.P. clarified that they tried to call her but did not get any response.
- As she was travelling, the Complainant went to collect her clothes on 6.2.2017 and found that her saree was spoiled and the black colour had bled onto the white part of the saree. The Complainant has annexed pictures of her spoiled saree Annexure C-2 to show that the black colour had bled on the white part of her saree. The Complainant requested the O.P. either to cure the defect or refund the saree purchase price of Rs.25,000/- on 11.3.2016. The Complainant has annexed the bill of the saree purchased from Silveredge Boutique & Beauty Parlour at Page No.8 of her Complaint. When she got no relief from the O.P., she filed the present Complaint.
- Denying the Complainant's averments, the O.P. stated that before they could process the Complainant's clothes, the O.P. found that the saree was not in a condition to be drycleaned. When they could not contact her despite calling her to get her consent to process her clothes, the O.P. sent a message informing the Complainant about the condition of her saree on 3.2.2017 at 3.07 PM. Hence the Complainant is trying to mislead the Forum.
- The O.P. has raised the preliminary objection that since no service was availed of by the Complainant, she is not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines a 'consumer' as below,
(7) "consumer" means any person who
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. Explanation. For the purposes of this clause
(a) the expression "commercial purpose " does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment; (b) the expressions "buys any goods " and "hires or avails any services " includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing; Clearly, the Act of availing service of the O.P. Laundromat via deferred payment mode makes the Complainant a consumer as she has promised to pay the O.P. for the service she has availed. It is the very fact that the O.P. may or may not have given her the service she availed of, which forms the bone of contention in the present Complaint between the two parties. - Now, coming to the merits of the case, in our view, it is inconceivable that the O.P. Laundromat collected the saree along with other clothes from the Complainant without first checking the condition of the clothes to be dry cleaned. If the saree was in the dreadful condition as claimed by them, why did they receive the same at the time of collection? Further, the date of delivery mentioned on the receipt filed by the Complainant (Annexure C-1) reflects the date as 31.1.2017 after 6 PM. However, the O.P. alleges that a message was sent to the Complainant to seek approval to begin processing her clothes only on 3.2.2017, which is two days after they were to deliver her dry-cleaned clothes.
- The Complainant has filed the pictures of the damaged saree on record, and its purchase bill is annexed on Page No.8. It is clear that the saree is not salvageable. Further, the O.P. has not whispered a word regarding the other clothes of the Complainant, which had also been given for dry cleaning along with the saree for reasons best known to them. At the very least, they could have apprised this Forum if the other clothes had been drycleaned and handed over to the Complainant on 31.1.2017.
- Hence allowing the Complaint, we hold the O.P. deficient in service and direct them to pay the Complainant a lumpsum amount of Rs.25,000/- inclusive of compensation and litigation cost. The O.P. shall also return the saree in its present condition to the Complainant if they have not already done so. The Complainant shall also pay the amount of dry cleaning if the O.P. has processed her other clothes if not done already by her. No other order as to cost.
- Order be given dasti to both parties.
- The file be consigned to the record room.
| |
