Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/35/2017

S.A.Subramani,s/o,late Anbanandham - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pujya shri., A.N.Clothing Raymond Retail Shop - Opp.Party(s)

B.Manivannan & D.Mohanaselvam

22 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  02.03.2017

                                                               Order pronounced on:  22.02.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE22^nd  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

 

C.C.NO.35/2017

 

1.S.A.Subramani,

S/o.Late.Anbanandham,

 

2.S.Divya,

W/o.Thiru.S.A.Subramani,

Both are residing at No.14/6,

Subramani Street,

Krishnamoorthy Nagar,

Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118.

                                                                                                    …..Complainants

 ..Vs..

 

1.PujyaShri.A.N.Clothing,

“Raymond Retail Shop”,

Represented by its Proprietor AN.Prakash Bohra,

No.212, Purasawalkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 007.

 

2.Raymond Ltd.,

Retail Department,

Represented by its Manager,

New Office Complex,

Jakegram, Pokhran Road – 1,

Thane – 400 606, State of Maharashtra.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 06.04.2017

Counsel for Complainants                    : M/s.B.Manivannan&D.Mohanaselvan

 

Counsel for   1^st Opposite Party               : M/s.G.Dilip Kumar, S.Sriraman &

                                                                     S.Nagarajan

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                  : Ex – parte (08.06.2017)

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

           The complainants  wedding betrothal was held on 21.04.2016 and the wedding was proposed to be held on 04.09.2016 at Angel Celebration Centre nearer to their residence. Thereafter the complainants have made various arrangements for spectacular celebration of the wedding function, since for both of them and their family it is an  occasion which they felt as fulfillment of long desire. Elaborate arrangements were made about stage decoration. Food for dinner and breakfast was ordered with a reputed caterer since many doctors, business men, senior advocates, Hon’ble Judges, high profile clients were invited for the wedding. While during the marriage rituals the complainants were  to wear traditional cotton saree and dothi, immediately after the ceremony they decided to change over to the formal dress. While second complainant was to wear silk saree for the occasion and  the 1^st  complainant decided to wear a wedding Suit, since wedding suit if a formal attire on a special occasion like marriage and that in the presence of official invites the 1^st complainant  was particular in being present in grand  dress. Both the complainants visited shop of 1^st opposite party  on 30.07.2016  with an intention to purchase  a ready to wear wedding Suit. After going through several suits exhibited in the showroom  they were not satisfied with the colours and pattern. The sales personnel suggested the complainants that they can choose the coat material and they would arrange for stitching the Wedding Suit  in their showroom itself  in Raymond quality for the same  price. Therefore the complainants after much deliberation have decided to buy a suit-material of navy blue colour for stitching Wedding Suit. The sales personnel in the showroom promised that the material is of very high quality and Wedding Suit will not lose its shine for more than 10 years. Believing on the words of sales personnel and also the Manager of 1^st opposite party, the material was finalized and the Stitching Master in the showroom took measurements of 1^st complainant for stitching the Wedding Suit. The price of the coat was stated as Rs.10,500/- all inclusive, i.e. material plus stitching. The 1^st opposite party raised the invoice No.CM16/3628 dated 30.07.2016. The amount was immediately paid by the complainants by way of Debit Card. After collecting the entire amount the 1^st opposite party promised to supply a Wedding Coat of very high quality. The complainants were asked to come after two weeks for trial wearing. In the third week of August 2016 they went to the 1^st opposite party’s showroom for trial wearing. The wedding suit was ready and 1^stcomplainant  wore  it and checked the fittings. He felt little uncomfortable while inserting his right hand in the sleeves and he felt little tightness in the rear side of right sleeves. He brought this to the notice of Stitching Master and also showroom Manager. They said it is not an issue and being a Wedding Coat they see to it that it fits him properly and he will not have  any issues while wearing it for the Wedding. Since the Wedding suit was ready the first opposite party requested the complainants to take delivery. Even though first complainant was not comfortable about the tightness in the right sleeves, having good faith and reliance on the assurance given by the stitching master and show room manager of the 1^st opposite party he took delivery and kept it in safe at his house. On 04.09.2016, immediately after the religious rituals related to wedding ceremony, and before the guests came to greet the complainants in the stage, the 1^st complainant opened the package and wore the Wedding Suit. While attempting to push his right hand into the sleeves he heard a tearing noise coming from the side wise of his sleeves. But he could not ascertain what happened to the wedding suit since the same was beyond his vision. While he came out of his dressing room and stood at the stage to receive the guests, 2^nd complainant found that the side portion of the right sleeves is torn to such an extent the shirt inside the Wedding Suit was clearly visible with naked eye for anyone who is standing even 15 feet away. The 1^st complainant could not continue to wear  the coat. Therefore he was constrained to remove the Wedding Coat and remain in the stage with formal trousers and plain shirt. Immediately the 2^nd complainant sent an e-mail to 1^st opposite party complaining about the poor quality of material and stitching. A close observation of the torn part of sleeves clearly indicates that not only the stitches were given away but even the materials also torn in that place. The very next day a person claiming himself as employee of 1^st opposite party came to the complainant’s house and in their absence took the coat for inspection to the shop. Thereafter someone from the 1^st opposite party had called 2^nd complainant over phone and informed her that there is fault on their part and the material was defective one. Further he stated that the complainants could exchange the suit for a new suit of same value or any other cloths for the value equal to the value of Wedding Suit. The complainants have accepted to get the value exchange of goods without prejudice to their right for claiming compensation and damages. On 13.09.2016 the complainants visited 1^st opposite party’s shop and they offered  goods worth equivalent to the value of suit. The complainants have also received the same without  prejudice. Even though they have received the goods in lieu of coat, the mental agony and stress undergone by them cannot be measured in words. The 1^st complainant’s desire for wearing a Wedding Suit which he nurtured for several months was shattered in minutes. The complainants were to stand embarrassingly in front of their valuable clients, customers etc. Several senior advocates and Judges were in attendance of the Wedding. The damage to the reputation and image caused on account of damaged wedding suit cannot be undone. The opposite parties liable to compensate the complainants for the defective material of Wedding Suit supplied and also for mental agony and stress undergone by them at the time of wedding. The joyous moment of wedding was turned out to be irksome and nightmare because of the torning  of cloth at the time of marriage  which was seen as bad omen by the family elders. All this mental torture were undergone because of poor quality of material supplied by opposite party. The complainants submit that material supplied for the wedding coat was of sub-standard quality. Only because of sub-standard quality and manufacturing defect the coat was torn while wearing. The 1^st opposite party as the retailer sold and 2^nd opposite party as the manufacturer of the coat material are liable to compensate the complainants for the damages caused to their reputation and for the humiliation and mental agony undergone by them because of tearing of coat during the important occasion. The 1^stcomplainant  who is holding the responsible post in a pharma company had invited several doctors, pharmacist medical chain owners for the wedding. He was constrained to stand without proper attire for the occasion. The complainants issued a legal notice dated 03.10.2016 to the opposite parties informing them about the poor quality of material used for the Wedding Coat and stress undergone by the complainants on account of Wedding Suit getting torn at the last minute the opposite parties were called upon to compensate the complainants for their deficiency in service.  The 1^st opposite party  had received the notice and sent a reply dated 14.10.2016 inter alia alleging that the coat was not torn due to quality of material but may be due to mishandling or negligence by the complainants. They further alleged that they have agreed for value replacement only on humanitarian grounds. The complainants submits there is no question of humanitarian grounds for value replacement. The supply of poor quality material for the  Wedding suit amounts to gross deficiency in service. The opposite parties who have supplied poor quality material are bound to replace the same. The replacement of goods would not amount to compensation and damages for the loss and mental agony suffered by the complainants. Under the pretext of exchanging the coat for the value equivalent, the opposite parties cannot get themselves absolved of their liability to compensate and pay damages to the complainants.   The 1^st opposite party being the retail vendor of the cloth materials manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party are service providers of selling cloth materials and ready to wear coats. The complainants are consumers of the opposite parties having purchased the Wedding Coat from them. The Wedding Suit which was torn at the time of marriage, on the 1^st occasion of wearing, is of sub-standard quality. The supply of sub-standard quality  material amounts to deficiency in service. The complainants submit if the material used for wedding coat is of good quality then the stitching would have only given away, on the other hand if it was stitched properly then it would not have torn in stitching. The opposite parties have been adopting  unscrupulous tactics by advertising that the products sold by them are of international standard and quality and are luring unaware customers to buy their products. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainants for the damages. Hence the  complaint.

 

 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant have purchased suit material and also utilized the services of the stitching master in their showroom itself and subsequently the 1^st complainant visited for trial and were fully satisfied with the stitching and thereafter took delivery of the suit from them without any complaints. On 04.09.2016 in the late evening they received an e-mail from the complainant stating that the coat was torn and immediately on the very next day as a reputed concern they had a telephonic conversation with the complainant  and confirmed the time to pick up the suit for analyzing the nature of the complaint and as per the confirmation the representative of the 1^st opposite party collected the suit from the residence of the complainant and therefore it is false to allege that the suit was collected in the absence of the complainant. The coat was not torn  due to the quality of the material or due to stiching as alleged in the complaint and on the other hand the coat could have been torn by mishandling or negligence on the part of the complainant. The 1^st opposite party further states that as a reputed business concern and on humanitarian grounds they accepted for replacement and exchange of the coat and the same was informed to the complainant. On 13.09.2016 the complainant visited their showroom and got goods for the value equivalent to the suit without any complaint and also appreciated the service of the staff of the 1^st opposite party while selecting the apparels. After exchanging the coat and getting goods for the value equivalent without any complaint, the 2^nd complainant being an advocate, as an afterthought issued an e-mail on 15.09.2016 with malafide intention stating  that she took delivery without prejudice to other rights. The complainant having exchanged the coat and getting goods for the value equivalent without any complaint, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 03.10.2016 only to make undue gains by threatening to disrepute the reputation and the brand image of the 1^st opposite party and the said legal notice was suitably replied by a reply notice dated 14.10.2016. The 1^st opposite party denies the allegations that when the 1^st complainant visited their shop for trial and  when he wore the suit he felt little uncomfortable while inserting his right  hand in the sleeves and that he brought it to the notice of stitching master and though he was not comfortable about the tightness in the right sleeves, he took delivery. On the other hand, the 1^st complainant visited for trail and was fully satisfied with the stitching and thereafter took delivery of the suit from them without any complaints and the said fact is admitted by the complainant in this e-mail to the 1^st opposite party. They are not aware whether the suit was torn before or after the wedding  as alleged.  The coat was not torn due to the  quality of the material or due to stitching as alleged in the complaint but on the other hand the coat could have been torn by mishandling or negligence on the part of the complainant. The allegation that someone from their shop called the complainant over phone and informed her that there is fault on their part is false and no such conversation of acceptance of fault ever happened. The 1^st opposite party as a reputed business concern and on humanitarian grounds accepted for replacement and exchange of the coat and the same was informed to the complainant and on 13.09.2016 the complainant visited their showroom and got goods for the value equivalent to the suit without any complaint and also appreciated the service of the staff of the 1^st opposite party while selecting the apparels. The material purchased by the complaint was of good quality and the said suit would have been torn due to mishandling or negligence and as a reputed concern on humanitarian grounds they have  also exchanged the said coat for the value equivalent and the same was also accepted by the complainant without any complaint. The legal notice issued by the complainant dated 03.10.2016 was suitably replied by a reply notice dated 14.10.2016. The suit material was not of poor quality as alleged and that it was a good quality material and the stitching was also done in a professional manner. Any cloth has to be handled efficiently and due to negligence or mishandling the same would have been torn.   And having accepted and exchanged the material without any complaint, the complainant is estopped from making any claim. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part and the complaint filed is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

3. The complainant and the  1^st opposite party had come forward with their respective proof affidavit and documents. Ex.A.1 to A.14 were marked on the side of the complainant.The 1^st opposite party  has not filed any supporting documents.

4. The   2^nd  opposite party who was served the notice from this Forum was called absent and  he was set ex-parte on 08.06.2017.

          5. The written arguments of the complainant and the 1^st opposite party  were filed and the oral arguments of the both were heard.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

 The complainants are husband and wife, got married on 04.09.2016. The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of fabric materials for suiting and shirting and coat materials and the 1^st opposite party is the retailer. Admitted facts are that the complainants have purchased suit material from the 1^st opposite party which is manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party , and engaged the services of the 1^st opposite party  for stitching  for the wedding coat on 30.07.2016 and paid the cost of Rs.12,308.00/- as per the invoice in Ex.A1. The date of wedding was on 04.09.2016. The purchased coat was torn on the date of wedding, immediately e-mail was sent to the opposite parties.  On the same day evening vide Ex.A2 the 1^st opposite party collected the coat from the residence of the complainant and the next day the 1^st opposite party regretted for what had happened and they offered to exchange the coat for a new one or in alternative to offer the value of the coat. The exchange of e-mail conversations are in Ex.A7. As offered by the 1^st opposite party   the complainants went and purchased the fresh goods in replacement of the torn one, vide invoice in Ex.A6 and acknowledged without prejudice to the right for claiming compensation.

  8. Ex.A3 is Weeding Invitation and the photographs with the suit are marked as Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. Legal notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite parties and it’s reply by the 1^st opposite party are marked as Ex.A8 and Ex.A9.  Educational Qualification Certificate of  both  complainants  and enrolment certificate issued by Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to the 2^nd complainant and AIBE examination  passed certificate and certificate issued by the 1^st complainant’s employer are marked as Ex.A10 to Ex.A14, which are not disputed.  

  9. The complainant would contend that the 1^st complainant is an Information System Management Graduate and employed in a reputed pharmaceuticals, and 2^nd complainant is a Post Graduate Degree Holder in Law and their parents have decided to perform the marriage in a grand manner and decided to purchase the coat from a popular shop i.e. in Raymonds Show Room. The coat purchased was torn at the auspicious time of marriage due to its poor quality, which caused mental agony and stress to both the complainants, therefore they are entitled for compensation even though it was replaced with a new one.

   10. 1^st opposite party would contend that the coat would have been torn because of mishandling or negligence on the part of the 1^st complainant, not due to poor quality or due to stitching and also on humanitarian grounds the 1^st opposite party   had replaced the coat, since the value equivalent to the suit was given to the complainants there is no deficiency in service and negligent on the part of 1^st opposite party  and  1^st opposite party  is not entitled to pay any compensation.

   11. 1^st opposite party had   contended that 1^st opposite party had the doubts as the coat was torn before or after wedding and the torn is not  due to poor quality of the material or due to stitching. Ex. A2   e-mail was sent on 04.09.2016 itself and the incident is narrated as it happened at 6 a.m  and the marriage timings in Ex.A3 is between 6.00 a.m. to 7.30 a.m. and it is substantiated by Ex.A4 photographs as the bridegroom is without coat along with the bride even then it makes no difference either before marriage or after marriage but it happened on the wedding day and it is confirmed by the e-mail dated on 04.09.2016 disclosing the incident.  Torning of the coat is admitted and the photographs confirm the torn is not on the stitching point, it is in the mid-sleeves  and new clothes will not tear even if it is mishandled  due to its new texture.  Therefore this forum do not accept the version of the 1^st opposite party   alleging the torn of the coat was due to mishandling or negligence on the part of the 1^st complainant   and hence concludes that there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of both opposite parties in view of the sub standard supply of goods to the complainants.

12. It is argued on the side of the 1^st opposite party  by the learned counsel  that there is an exchange of  new coat for the value  in view of humanitarian grounds hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted the cases reported in

1. 1992(2) CPJ (National Commission)

       Wherein it is reported that ‘where it is practically impossible to adduce tangible evidence regarding the actual monetary equivalent of the inconvenience , mental suffering ,etc.,  caused to the petitioner, it is the duty of the concerned Redressal Forum to assess and determine in the light of all evidence available in the case what amount would be reasonable got to compensate the petitioner for the inconvenience , mental agony etc., caused to the complainant on account of the negligence of the opposite party.

2.1992 (1) CPJ 90 (Maharashtra State Commission)

      In the above cited case it is held that the tea packet was replaced by the opposite parties as courtesy and not as a Redressal of the grievance of the complainant’

3.II (1994)CPJ 129 (Delhi State Commission)

In the referred case, relating to the supply of defective camera, was taken back by the opposite parties  and value was ordered to be refunded and then the complainant was entitled for damages for causing mental agony and suffering.

As referred in the above cases the complainant is eligible to get the compensation even though the coat was exchanged for the torn one. 2^nd opposite party had not appeared before the forum to disprove the case of the complainant. The complainants have proved  their case  and also the negligence and deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice against opposite parties.   Hence as per the discussions held above, both the opposite parties are held liable for their negligent act and point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.

13. POINT NO:2

The documents submitted by the complainants with respect to their educational qualification and their other qualifications is not disputed by the opposite parties . The 1^st  complainant being   a system coordinator in a reputed pharma and also the 2^nd complainant being an advocate,  the dignitaries, senior  advocates, physicians and some more reputed persons had attended the marriage of the complainants as argued on the side of the complainants  is to be an acceptable fact. 

  14. Since the coat was torn the 1^st complainant had to wear formal shirt on the day of wedding. Tearing of clothes at the time of the auspicious function like marriage, would have depressed the mental state of both the complainants as suggested is also to be accepted. The mental stress suffered by both the complainants  cannot at all be measured, as already the replacement of goods will not compensate the damage and also the replacement of value will also not absolve the liability , hence this forum is of the view that it is fit to order Rs.75,000/- for the substandard supply of the  stitched  goods,  on account of the tearing of coat on the wedding day and also the loss of reputation and humiliation caused which resulted in causing mental agony and stress  to the complainants.  Therefore, the opposite parties are jointly or severally liable to pay Rs.75,000/-  to the complainants  for the mental agony and stress caused to the complainants by opposite parties  besides the payment of cost Rs.5,000/-.

                        

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) to the complainant  as compensation for mental agony and stress  besides, a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for costs.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of the payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd day of February 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 30.07.2016         Copy of Invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainants

 

Ex.A2 dated 04.09.2016         E-mail sent by the 2^nd complainant to opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 04.09.2016         Copy of Wedding Invitation

Ex.A4 dated 04.09.2016         Copy of Two photograph of 1^st complainant shoot at the time of wedding

Ex.A5 dated 04.09.2016         Copy of Two photographs of the wedding suit

Ex.A6 dated 13.09.2016         Copy of Invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A7 dated 06.09.2016         E-mail conversation between 2^nd complainant and       

to 15.09.2016                              1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A8 dated 03.10.2016         Lawyer’s notice issued by the complainants to opposite parties

 

Ex.A9 dated 14.10.2016         Reply notice sent by the 1^st opposite party to complainant

 

Ex.A10 dated 18.07.2007       Degree certificate of 1^st complainant

 

Ex.A11 dated 08.09.2015       Master of Law degree certificate of 2^nd complainant

 

Ex.A12 dated 01.09.2012       Enrolment certificate issued by bar council of Tamil Nadu

 

Ex.A13 dated 01.06.2013       AIBE exam passing certificate

 

Ex.A14 dated NIL                   Certificate issued by the first complainant’s employer

                                                         

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

                                      …….. NIL ……

 

 

                                               

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT