Date of filing: 02/04/2019                                        

Date of Judgment: 11/09/2023

Mr. Sudip Niyogi, Hon’ble President.

The case of the complainant in short is that on 21/05/2018 she went to the business place of the OP for servicing and painting of her Usha Sewing Machine 15R being Sl. No. TP – 38645, Model - Usha Tailor. On inspection the OP agreed for servicing and painting the said machine at cost of Rs. 1,700/-. Accordingly complainant deposited the said machine with the OP and paid Rs. 500/- as advance towards the said amount of total cost. The opposite party acknowledged the receipt of the said amount by issuing one cash memo. Subsequently when the complainant went to OP for collecting the machine she was told that due to heavy work load he could not complete the work and promised to deliver the same within July 2018. Thereafter, several times complainant visited the business place of OP for getting the said machine. But on one pretext or another OP avoided. Ultimately, she was compelled to approach this commission for getting relief. The price of the said machine was Rs. 15,000/- and she got the said machine from her deceased mother for which she has immense sentimental value.

The opposite party appeared and contested this case by filing a written version and evidence. His case is that it is the husband of the complainant who used to visit his shop and handed over the machine to him for servicing and painting etc. and the complainant never visited his shop. According to him many a time he requested the husband of the complainant to get back the machine but he refused. He also claimed that complainant’s husband talked to a painter to paint the machine and it is the said painter who delayed the matter. However, he admitted the amount of advance paid to him and he is also ready to refund the amount of advance made to him and also deliver the machine.

Both parties filed their evidence in the form of affidavit, exchanged questionnaires and replies thereto. Complainant filed brief notes of argument.

Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief in this case.?

                                                        FINDINGS

We have considered the materials on record including the evidence of both the parties. Admittedly, it is found, that the said machine Usha Sewing Machine 15R, Sl. No. TP – 38645, Model – Usha Tailor was handed over to the opposite party for servicing and painting etc. Although OP claimed the said machine was handed over to him not by the complainant but by her husband which is denied by the complainant. It is also admitted that OP issued one cash memo on receipt of the machine in the name of S. Dasgupta on 21/05/2018. The receipt also reveals the approximate cost of Rs. 1,700/- out of which 500/- was advanced and this has not at all been denied by the OP.

Now what transpires is that the work of servicing and painting of the machine was not completed by the OP and that’s why he expressed his willingness to return the machine along with the amount of Rs. 500/- as paid in advance. In this regard the complainant alleged that when the machine was not delivered to her after the work by the OP on payment of the balance amount of the cost she wanted to get back the machine as it has immense sentimental value to her but OP did not return the same. In this connection complainant is found to have produced a letter annexed – ‘B’ addressed to the owner of Anupama Sewing Traders i.e. the opposite party requesting him to return the machine.

Now it is clear that complainant wanted to get back the machine and OP also is willing to return the machine along with the amount paid in advance. But what happens a long period has elapsed from 21/05/2018 when the machine was handed over to the OP for servicing and painting. But neither the machine was returned to the complainant after servicing etc. on payment of balance amount of cost nor the machine along with the amount of advance was returned to the complainant following her request. If the OP had actually returned the machine and the amount of advance to the complainant following her request, she would not have any reason to approach this commission.

Complainant prays for a direction upon the OP to deliver the sewing machine after proper servicing and painting on receipt of balance amount of cost and also prays for compensation and cost of litigation. But now the present circumstances issuing a direction upon the OP to return the machine after proper servicing and painting on receipt of the balance amount of cost would not be justified as OP failed to comply with the work during the long period of  custody of the machine with him. Instead as OP wanted to return the machine along with the amount of advance, an order may be made directing the OP to return the machine along with the amount of advance to the complainant. Complainant is also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation as she couldn’t use the said machine which was in the custody of the OP who didn’t return it to the complainant despite being requested and also she (complainant) could not get the job done from some other place / person. She is also entitled to Rs. 3,000/- for cost of litigation.  

Therefore, it is

ORDERED

That the instant case CC/212/2019 is allowed on contest.

The OP is directed to return the Usha Sewing Machine as described in the petition of complainant along with the amount of advance paid Rs. 500/-, to the complainant. OP is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- cost of litigation to the complainant.

OP is further directed to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of this order failing which complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law.

Dictated and corrected by me

President