Haryana

Kurukshetra

127/2017

Nitika - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pehnava Botoquie - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.127 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.06.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 16.04.2018.

Nitika daughter of Sh. Rajbir Singh at present residing at Room No.125, Bhagirathi Girls Hostl, NIT, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

Pahnawa Boutique, opposite 3^rd Gate, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra through its Proprietor Kusum Rani.

….Respondent.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                OP in person.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Nitika against Pahnawa Boutique, the opposite party.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased three suits worth Rs.3300/- and gave the said three suits to the Op for tailoring/sewing the same on 09.01.2017.  It is alleged that the Op told Rs.610/- as charges for sewing the said three suits.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.100/- to the Op in cash on 09.01.2017 and the Op issued a receipt No.463 dt. 09.01.2017 by mentioning the date of delivery of the said suits/clothes as 16.01.2017.  It is further alleged that on 16.01.2017, the complainant went to receive her clothes and then the Op gave only two suits to the complainant after packing the same and requested to give another suit very soon.  It is further alleged that after reaching at her room, the complainant found that the clothes were not designed in accordance with her and were not completely sewed by the Op.  The complainant visited the shop of Op several times but the Op lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to refund the cost of three suits i.e. Rs.3300/- and Rs.100/- paid in cash by the complainant and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5500/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant visited the Op on 09.01.2017 for sewing/stitching the three suits and the answering Op provided the best services to the complainant and prepared the two suits as per instruction and remaining one was under preparation.  But the complainant visited at the shop again for taking the delivery of prepared suits, after checking and in full satisfaction, the complainant took the two suits without payment on asking that she will make the payment of all the suits at the time of delivery of third suit.  The complainant gave only Rs.100/- on 09.01.2017 and in good faith, the answering Op had delivered the two suits without payment.  Thereafter, the complainant intentionally did not come present for taking the delivery of the third suit and did not pay the amount of stitching to the answering Op till date.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             No doubt, the complainant has stated that she purchased clothes of three suits for the amount of Rs.3300/- and handed over the said clothes to the Op for sewing purpose but the Op sued the said suits not in accordance with the design told by the complainant.  In these circumstances, the complainant has made prayer to refund the cost of three suits i.e. Rs.3300/- and Rs.100/- paid in cash and further the amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.  However, it is to be seen that the complainant has failed to prove on record as to whom the said clothes of three suits was purchased by her.  So much so she has failed to reveal as to from whom the said clothes was purchased by her.  In these circumstances, it is clear that the complainant has failed to prove her case.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint of complainant and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.        A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.04.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member