Haryana

Ambala

CC/230/2018

Ashutosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pooja Sarees - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.:  230 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution            :   01.08.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :   29.11.2019

 

1.       Ashutosh son of Rajinder Kumar aged about 25 years, resident of      House No. 48/A Street No.5, Sant Atar Singh Nagar, Ward No.2,   Sunam, Sangrur, Punjab.

2.       Raj Rani wife of Rajinder Kumar aged about 50 years, resident of      House No.48/A Street No.5, Sant Atar Singh Nagar, Ward no.2.    Sunam, Sangrur, Punjab.

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                    Versus

1.       Pooja Sarees, Ambala Wholesale Complex, NH1, Kalka Chowk,      Ambala City (GST No.06AADFP8833H1Z3) through its authorized person.

2.       Proprietor/partners/authorized persons/Directors of Pooja Sarees        Ambala Wholesale Complex, NH1, Kalka Chowk, Ambala City (GST        No.06AADFP8833H1Z3).

3.       Punjab High Class Dry Cleaners and Dyers, Cinema Chowk, Sunam,          Punjab through its authorized person.

                    …. Opposite Parties

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Ms. Priya Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Ramesh Rana, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2.

OP No.3 already ex parte.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To replace the fabric with a new one of same brand.
2. To pay Rs.15,000/-, being the price, stitching and dry clean charges of fabric alongwith interest to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant No.1 had purchased some suits, dress and saree from OP No.1 and 2 on 30.01.2018 for the price of Rs.27,650/- vide bill No.01RT-36330 for complainant No.2 for the marriage of sister of complainant no.1 and daughter of complainant No.2. Complainant No.2 got stitched her suit and wore first time on the pre wedding function of marriage of her daughter on 04.03.2018. After wearing the suit, the complainant No.2 asked the complainant No.1 to get it dry cleaned and the complainant no.1 got it dry cleaned from OP No.3 on 25.03.2018 and received it back on 27.03.2018. After receiving the same back complainants found change in colour and also complained about the same to OP No.3. The OP No.3 told complainant that the fabric and its colour was inferior so ask it to OP No.1 and 2. On this complainants requested the OP No.1 and 2 about the loss suffered by them, but of no use. At the time of selling of the suit fabric the OP No.1 and 2 presents their warranty of the above said fabric and assured the first party that they would be responsible if any problem would come and they would exchange the said fabric with new one. Despite repeated requests OPs failed to redress the grievance of the complainants and hence they are deficient in providing the service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, not coming to this Forum with clean hands, suppressing of true and material facts, no locus standi etc. On merits, it is stated that complainant never purchased any clothes from the OP No.1 and 2 and the bills are only manipulated in order to drag the OP No.1 and 2 who are renowned cloth merchants in unnecessary and uncalled litigation in order to defame and tarnish the image of the firm. Further stated that complainant had given the fabric to the dry cleaner and by using of sub standard and wrong detergent, chemicals, the same might have got faded due to the negligence on the part of OP No.3. Complainant never came to the OP No.1 and never complaint regarding the inferior quality of cloths purchased, if any and had if any manufacturing defect could have sent for the quality check to the manufacturer. It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the bill it has been clearly mentioned that there shall not be no guarantee, no exchange and defected pieces would be changed within 15 days of its purchase, whereas as per the complaint it has been filed after a gap of about 60 days and as such the present complaint is not maintainable. As per the terms and conditions of the sale there is no guarantee of any fabric. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 & 2 and the complaint filed against them may be dismissed with costs.

3.                Upon notice OP No.3 failed to appear before this Forum and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 14.09.2018.

4.                The complainant No.1 has tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A and complainant No.2 has tendered her affidavit Annexure CW1/B alongwith documents as Annexure C1/1 to C1/13. Learned counsel for the complainants tendered affidavit of Rajinder Kumar as Annexure C-B alongwith document Annexure C-14 and closed the evidence of the complainants. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2  tendered affidavit of Shri Raj Kumar, Prop. of Pooja Sarees Kalka Chowk, Ambala as Annexure OP1/A and closed the evidence of OPs No.1 and 2.

5.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP and carefully gone through the case file.

6.                The learned counsel for the complainants reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

7.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 reiterated the version as mentioned in their written version and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 30.01.2018, complainant no.1 purchased some suits, dress and saree for complainant No.2 from OP No.1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.27,650/- vide bill No.01RT-36330. Complainant No.2 got stitched her suit and worn first time on 04.03.2018. After wearing the suit in question, complainant No.2 asked the complainant No.1 to get it dry cleaner. Complainant No.1 got the suit dry cleaned from OP No.3, on dated 25.03.2018 and received the same back on 27.03.2018. After dry clean, colour of the suit got changed and complainants complained about the same to OP No.3 and told that the fabric and its colour was inferior. On this complainants requested the OP No. 1 and 2, but of no use. Despite repeated requests OPs failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and therefore OPs have committed deficiency in service. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant produce the suit in question before this Forum, the counsel for the complainant also placed on record the photographs of the suit in question, which are marked as A to D.

                    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 has argued that complainant never purchased any clothe from the OP No.1 and 2. Complainants are dragging OPs No.1 and 2 into an uncalled litigation. Further argued that complainant had given the said suit in question to the dry cleaner and due to use of sub standard, wrong detergent and chemical same might got faded for which OP No.3 is responsible. Complainants never visited the shop of OPs No.1 and 2 and as such they are no deficient in providing the service and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

9.                From the perusal of the case file as well as the evidence available on the record, it revealed that the complainant failed to prove that they had purchased the clothes from OPs No.1 & 2 as well as the complainant did not placed on record the genuine invoice, which shows that the cloths in question were purchased from the OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 denied that they purchased the clothes in question from their shop. Annexure C1/1 (Tax Invoice) bears neither any stamp and nor any signatures of any authorized persons of the shop of the OPs No.1 & 2. Therefore, the invoice (Annexure C-1) in possession of complainant is not seems to be genuine. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainants placed on record the photographs of the suit in question which are mark as A to D. The complainant also failed to prove their case even by placing on record, the photographs (Annexure C1/5 & C1/6) which reflects the grey colour and the photographs produced on 25.11.2019 before us, which reflects the blue colour. We found that the OPs are not deficient in providing service to the complainant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, consequently, we dismiss the same without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :29.11.2019.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                      Member                         President