Delhi

East Delhi

CC/143/2015

ROHIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRADEEP KR. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.     143/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution             25/02/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on            28/11/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                     29/11/2017  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. Rohit Verma, adult    

R/o-HN- 31 B, Pocket I,   

Dishad Garden, Delhi 110095………………………………....………..…………….Complainant

                                                                    Vs

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sahni 

Prop. Apex Tailors & Readymade Clothing’s

G-89, Vijay Chauk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 ………..…………………….Opponent

 

Quorum  -       Sh Sukhdev Singh   President

                         Dr P N Tiwari            Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                             

                                                 

Complainant / Rohit Verma gave cloth for stitching two pants to OP/Apex Tailors on 01/11/2014 vide receipt no. 690 and were to be delivered after stitching on 02/11/2014.  Complainant noticed that both the pants had loose fittings and was immediately reported to OP who assured that after proper washing the fittings were perfect; pants were not in proper fittings so both the pants were given again to OP for getting proper fittings. Despite of repeated visit and calling on OPs landline numbers, no satisfactory reply was received by complainant, so  sent a legal notice on 19/01/2015 (Ex CW1/2), but did not get any reply or removed defects, hence filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs 20,000/- as mental agony and physical strain.

 

After perusing the complaint, notice was served. OP filed his written statement where OP denied all the allegations as false and wrong.  It was stated that complainant had not submitted any proof of stitching as the said two pants were ever given for stitching to OP and he had neither submitted any cash bill or receipt of stitching two pants.  It was stated that complainant had received both the pants after full satisfaction in stitching as per measurements were taken by OP, but the allegation as size was not proper and after washing, size would get corrected was a wrong fact as good quality cloths never get shrunken. It was assured for a refitting as per the size of complainant’s if any doubt remains, but complainant had never turn up for any time. Hence, complaint devoid of any evidence, be dismissed with cost.  

 

Complainant filed his rejoinder and evidences on affidavit and reaffirmed on oath himself that all the stated facts were true and correct. Complainant had also filed evidence of photo of a pant showing OP name tag and zerox of visiting card of OP. He had also relied on a citation of NCDRC as AC MODAGI vs Cross Well Tailor and others, decided on 09/08/1991 where deficiency of OP was found and was ordered to refund the cost and compensation. OP did not file any evidence despite serving notice, hence proceded Ex Parte.

 

Arguments were heard. Order was reserved 

We have gone through all the evidences filed on affidavit of complainant himself and which were on record. We have also analysed the citation submitted by the complainant from NCDRC (supra), the facts were not related in this case as there was no receipt of amount paid by the complainant to OP for stitching and no receipt of pant clothes purchased for stitching. Also there was no evidence to prove that there was defective stitching by OP and merely filing photo of stitched pant with OP tag cannot be presumed to be of complainant and also both the pants were with complainant. It was also not proved that complainant had got rectified defective stitching from another tailor with any evidence.  

 

Despite of case being proceeded Ex Parte against OP, complainant could not succeed to prove his allegations against OP and also he could not prove any damages suffered due to faulty stitching. Under this Act, complainant has to establish that actual damages has been suffer due to the deficiency in services by OP with concrete evidences.

Hence, this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed, hence dismissed without cost.  

The order copy be sent to the parties as per Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                   Mrs Harpreet Kaur, Member                                                                     

                                                 Shri Sukhdev Singh, President