DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.72 of 2012
Sri Rajeshwar Mishra,
S/o Sri Krishna Mishra,
R/o E4441, Sector 12,
Rajajipuram, Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
Raj Drycleaners & Boutique,
S-14E, Block Market,
Rajajipuram, Lucknow.
.......Opp. Party
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OP for directing the OP for providing saree and shirt after drycleaning or to pay cost of saree and shirt of Rs.1,900.00 and for payment of Rs.50,000.00 as compensation, cost of litigation of Rs.15,000.00 and 18% interest on the total amount.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he gave one saree costing Rs.1,500.00 and a shirt of Rs.400.00 for dry cleaning in the shop of OP on 14.11.2011. The delivery date indicated in the receipt was 18.11.2011 and hence when the Complainant went to take the clothes from the OP then he was told that he should come after 2 hours as the clothes were not ready till then. When again the Complainant went to take the clothes then he was returned by saying that the serial number of the clothes has been lost and hence his clothes could not be cleaned and therefore he should contact after 2-4 days. Due to non availability of the clothes, the Complainant could not wear the clothes in a marriage ceremony which they had to attend
-2-
and hence there was irreparable loss. The Complainant thereafter also went many a times but he was not given clothes on one pretext or the other and ultimately on 28.11.2011 the OP refused to give the clothes and also abused the Complainant, hence this complaint for compensation etc.
The OP has filed the WS in the form of affidavit wherein it is mainly submitted that the Complainant has only given a shirt for dry cleaning on 14.11.2011 to the OP but inadvertently on the receipt firstly one saree for dry clean was wrongly mentioned and it was immediately clarified by the OP by cutting the same and thereafter a white shirt was mentioned. This fact is also evident from the bare look of the receipt in which the cost of the dry cleaning is mentioned as Rs.25.00 only which is the dry clean cost of a shirt only, not the cost of dry clean of a saree and a shirt, as wrongly and illegally mentioned by the Complainant in the present complaint. The Complainant has approached the OP for taking the aforementioned dry cleaned white shirt on 18.11.2011 very early in the morning at about 10.00 am and that is why the OP asked the Complainant to come again after about 2 hours so that the aforesaid shirt may be specially prepared for delivery as the time mentioned on the receipt for every delivery was 8 pm. The aforesaid white shirt was rightly prepared for delivery at about 12 pm on 18.11.2011 but thereafter neither the Complainant personally came to receive the same nor instructed the OP to send the same to the best place the Complainant wants, hence there was no fault of the OP and she was not responsible for any sort of mental stress and mental agony caused on that day to the Complainant. The Complainant has never approached the OP thereafter and directly sent a notice which was duly and timely replied by the OP on 07.12.2011. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
-3-
The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 4 papers. The OP has filed the affidavit of Smt. Meena Mehta, Proprietor, Raj Drycleaners and Dyers with 4 papers.
Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
Now it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant had given saree and shirt fir dry cleaning to the OP but the OP did not give the clothes back after dry cleaning and therefore they have committed deficiency in service whereas according to the OP only the shirt was given for dry cleaning which was to be delivered to the Complainant in the evening but the Complainant came in the morning when it was not ready for being delivered and the Complainant was requested to come after two hours but thereafter he did not come even though the shirt was made ready for delivery on the date of delivery itself, hence she has not committed any deficient in service.
The Complainant has in support of his contention that he had given a saree and shirt for dry cleaning, has filed the original receipt issued by the OP. It is evident from the receipt that the word saree has been cut and shirt white has been written. The contention of the OP in this regard is that the word saree was wrongly written by the Complainant and hence after cutting the word saree the word shirt white was written, hence only a white shirt was given by the Complainant for dry cleaning and no saree was given by the Complainant. From the receipt it is clear that only one article was given as in the column of quantity number one is written which makes it clear that only shirt was given for dry cleaning and saree was wrongly written by the OP. In support of this contention the learned Counsel for the OP argues that the amount charged for dry cleaning is paltry sum of Rs.25.00 and there was no question of the charges for dry cleaning for saree and shirt to be only Rs.25.00. He has also filed the photocopies of the receipt issued to some other customer of the same date which
-4-
shows that the charges for dry cleaning of saree was charged as Rs.110.00 and on the basis of this receipt which is the receipt of the next serial number of the receipt issued to the Complainant, it is argued that the charges for dry cleaning of saree is Rs.110.00, therefore there is no question of charges of dry cleaning to be Rs.25.00 for the saree as well as for the shirt. There is definitely substance in this argument and so it is clear that only a shirt was given for dry cleaning and no saree alongwith shirt was given as is claimed by the Complainant, therefore it is not correct on the part of the Complainant to say that a saree and a shirt was given for dry cleaning. Now when the saree was not given for dry cleaning then there is no question of saree being delivered to the Complainant after dry cleaning, hence all the allegations in this regard of the Complainant pertaining to the dry cleaning of the saree are incorrect.
Now, the question arises as to whether the Complainant was not delivered the shirt on the promised date and time. In this regard, it is stated by the Complainant that when he went to take the delivery of the articles given by him for dry cleaning on 18.11.2011 then he was asked to come after two hours for taking the delivery and when the Complainant again went to take the clothes then he was returned by saying that the clothes were not ready. The Complainant does not specify as to at what time he went to take the delivery of the clothes from the OP. In this regard, Smt. Meena Mehta the OP has filed the affidavit wherein it is stated that the Complainant had come to take the delivery of the articles at 10.00 am in the morning on 18.11.2011 when he was asked to come after two hours. Even the delivery time mentioned on receipt is 8.00 pm only and when the clothes were made ready at 12.00 pm on the same date then the Complainant did not come forward to take
-5-
clothes. Since the Complainant has not stated as to what time he went to take the delivery of the clothes on 18.11.2011 and the OP has categorically stated that the Complainant had come to take the delivery of the clothes on 18.11.2011 at about 10.00 am then it is clear that the Complainant had gone to take the delivery of the clothes from the OP in the day time on 18.11.2011 whereas the delivery time in the receipt is shown as 8.00 pm. Obviously, the Complainant has to visit the shop after 8.00 pm for taking the delivery of the clothes as it is clearly mentioned in the receipt itself, therefore there was no occasion for the Complainant to visit before 8.00 pm for taking the delivery and if the clothes were not ready before the delivery time given on the receipt then there is no deficiency on the part of the OP in asking the Complainant to come after a few hours. Even though the Complainant has stated that when he went after few hours to take the delivery on the same date and even thereafter subsequent dates but the OP has taken the stand that the Complainant did not come to take the delivery of the clothes when they were made ready for being delivered on 18.11.2011 at 12.00 pm. From the sequence of events and facts mentioned above it is borne out that the Complainant did not come to the OP for taking the delivery after 8.00 pm on 18.11.2011. There does not appear to be any rationale for the OP not to deliver the clothes even when the Complainant went on the subsequent dates. It is borne out of the records that the Complainant has tried to include the saree as an article also given for dry cleaning whereas only a shirt was given and not the saree as is proved above. This shows that the Complainant has not come with clean hands and therefore there appears to be some substance in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the OP that the Complainant did not come forward to take the delivery of the shirt also on the subsequent dates with the intention of harassing the OP. Since the Complainant has not come with
-6-
clean hands, therefore the complaint can be dismissed on this score itself. However on the basis of the discussions made above also it is clear that the OP has not committed any deficiency in service, therefore this complaint deserves to be dismissed. However, the Complainant can take the delivery of the shirt from the OP.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
The parties have to bear their own costs.
(Rajarshi Shukla) (Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member Member President
Dated: 23 November, 2015
