This is a complaint made by one Suniti Kr. Chaudhury, son of Late Sadananda Chaudhury, residing at Flat No.208, May Fair Plaza, 120 Netaji Subhas Avenue, Serampore, Dist.-Hooghly, PIN-712 201 against proprietor/owner of Indian Silk Agencies, 129A, Rash Behari Avenue, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 029, praying for a direction upon the OP to return to the Complainant the amount of Rs.3,000/- paid to it by the Complainant and his wife as per due bill issued by the establishment of the OP and a direction upon the OP to discontinue unfair trade practice of alluring the innocent buyers.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is a retired person aged about 72 years. OP runs the establishment at Kolkata at 129, Rash Behari Avenue, selling silk sarees of various types and prices.

            Before Durga Puja of the year 2014, Complainant with his wife aged 68 years entered into the shop of the OP for purchasing a silk saree within an amount of Rs.3,000/-, where the salesman showed they one silk saree valued of Rs.1,500/-. But, Complainant asked for showing a saree of price of Rs.3,000/-. On this OP took the Complainant to another counter and showed a silk saree which was of higher amount of Rs.5,350/-. When Complainant’s wife told that she wanted a saree within the price of Rs.3,000/-, on this the salesman told that there is no need to pay the total price at a time and they would do piko and falls par of the saree free of cost after which it would be delivered on receipt of the balance amount. Complainant paid Rs.3,000/- and took the saree to cash counter and handedover the saree and the amount to the cashier. The cashier took the saree and the amount from the Complainant and prepared the bill and gave the bill to the Complainant who found it to be a due bill.

            Thereafter, on 29.10.2014 Complainant went to the shop of the OP with the due bill and the balance amount of the money and he found that the saree was stitched with piko and falls par. But, a portion of the saree was cut and removed from the saree due to which the length of the saree got shortened. The Manager of the shop told that falls and piko was not stitched in the full length of the saree and a part is detached as the blouse portion and the blouse was not prepared as the tailor was absent. The Complainant previously got sarees stitched with piko and falls par retaining the blouse portion. He informed the matter to his wife over his mobile phone and his wife told not to accept the defective saree and asked for full length of the saree or refund of the money which was paid to them.

            But, OP refused to return the saree and pay the money. The Complainant found that he and his wife became the prey of cheating and foul play on account of unfair trade practice. Complainant reported the said unfair trade practice of the OP to Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trade Practices, Kolkata South Regional office, but the dispute could not be resolved. So, Complainant filed this case.

            Against this OP filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. Further OP has alleged that the complaint is not maintainable because the receipt was issued in the name of wife of the Complainant. OP has also alleged that Indian Silk House Agencies is a well known name in the industry and having its existence over 41 years. Complainant’s wife M. Chaudhury purchased a silk saree for an amount of Rs.5,350/- from the OP on 23.9.2014. But, she represented that she was not carrying the entire amount. As such, OP was allowed her to make part payment of Rs.3,000/- and issued a due bill. Further, OP has stated at the time of such purchase the salesman offered Mrs. M. Chaudhury to do free piko and stitch of falls. The blouse piece was cut .

            After a lapse of over a month the Complainant went to collect the saree. But, when the saree was handed over, Complainant started to demand the blouse piece which was earlier received by his wife. OP repeatedly explained that the blouse has already been taken by the wife. But despite Complainant proceeded to create a furore in the store. OP, further states that it is the policy of the Company  that when piko and falls is done the blouse piece is cut. OP has also denied specifically other allegations of the complaint and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant files affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts           mentioned in the complaint. Against this OP No.1 files questionnaire to which Complainant has not filed affidavit-in-reply. OP has filed evidence to which Complainant has filed questionnaire to which OP has filed reply.

            Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.3,000/- paid to the OP and also for compensation and litigation cost. In this regard, it appears that OP put a question to the Complainant relating to the condition of the saree that the wife of the Complainant as well as whether she is using the saree regularly and whether Complainant was forced to make payment of Rs.5,350/-. Surprisingly, Complainant has not answered to this question which reveals that Complainant took the saree after making payment of due amount and Complainant’s wife took the blouse piece. As such, the question of refund of Rs.3,000/- does not arise.

            Further, it appears that since Complainant received the saree with his wife and Complainant’s wife is using the saree the question of compensation does not arise and no compensation can be awarded.

            In such circumstance, we do not find any ground to allow the prayers of the Complainant.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/80/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed on contest.