Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/170/2022

Devilal Pareek - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rama Textiles - Opp.Party(s)

Ajayraj Tatiya

16 Feb 2023

ORDER

RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 170/2022

 

Devi Lal Pareek s/o Late Sh. Surajmal Pareek r/o village Sami Tehsil Dataramgarh Distt. Sikar.

Vs.

1. Rama Textiles, The Raymond Shop through Prop. Kamla Market, Station Road, Sikar, Raj. 332001.

2. Raymond Ltd. Through Director,Mahendra Towers, 2^nd floor, B-Wing, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Varli, Mumbai 400189.

Date of Order 16.2.2023

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Member(Judicial)

Hon'ble Mrs. Shobha Singh- Member

Present:

Mr. Ajayraj Tantia learned counsel for the appellant

Mr. Kamal Chamaria learned counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL):

2

 

This appeal has been filed by appellant/ complainant against the judgment of learned District Consumer Commission, Sikar dated 10.12.2021 passed in its Complaint Case No 83/2011 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant has been dismissed.

 

Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the complainant has filed a complaint before the learned DCC Sikar with the facts that the appellant/ complainant had purchased a suit length on 17.1.2007 details of which are given in the complaint. The length of the cloth was three meters and rate was Rs. 1,221/- per meter as such the total amount paid for the three meter suit length was Rs.3,663/-. The appellant/complainant got the suit stitched in the month of October 2007 for which he paid Rs. 2500/- to the tailor. According to the complainant after six months there appeared pilling on the coat and pent both for which complaint was made to the respondent/ non-complainant no.1 who advised to get the suit drycleaned but according to the complainant even after dryclean the pilling remained there and again in the month of November 2008 he complained to respondent/non-complainant no.1 who then said that he would inform to

3

 

respondent/ non-complainant no.2 manufacturer. According to complainant despite repeated contact the respondent/non-complainant no.1 could not arrange meeting of complainant with respondent/ non-complainant no.2. Subsequently in the month of January 2009 the appellant/complainant deposited the defective suit with respondent/ non-complainant no.1 but the respondent/ non-complainant no.1 did not give another suit length in exchange and on 8.10.2010 declined to do so. In this way while alleging selling defective piece of suit length resulting into deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for giving another suit length or refund of the value of the suit length alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation etc.

 

The respondent /non-complainant no.1 in its reply has stated that the complainant did not purchase cloth instead his son Surender had purchased the cloth. It has also been alleged that the complaint is time barred. According to respondent / non-complainant no.1 suit was got stitched after a long interval and the cloth was used in a rough and tough manner and was not properly laundered as per directions. According to respondent/ non-complainant no.1 the cloth was forcibly left

4

 

with respondent/non-complainant no.1 and despite repeated intimation the son of complainant did not come to take the cloth back. In this way alleging the complaint to have been filed on the basis of wrong facts making undue demand, it has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

 

The respondent / non- complainant no.2 has also stated in its reply that the cloth was not purchased by the complainant himself but was purchased by his son. The complaint has not been filed within limitation. No notice was given to respondent/ non-complainant no.2 prior to filing of the complaint. Respondent/ non-complainant no.2 has also averred that suit was stitched after a long interval from the date of purchase. It has been stated that the allegation of appearance of pilling within six months are false. In this way alleging that no claim is made out and prayed that complaint be dismissed with costs.

 

The learned DCC Sikar after hearing at length the contentions of all the sides has passed the impugned judgment on the basis of their averments and evidence and has

 

5

 

dismissed the complaint.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has more or less reiterated the facts contained in the memo of appeal. On the ground of limitation the learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant submits that admittedly disputed suit was returned to the complainant on 8.10.2010 and the complaint was filed on 14.2.2011 therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is filed beyond limitation.

 

Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents/ non-complainants has vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and has supported the impugned judgment as being factually and legally correct.

 

We have pondered upon the rival contentions and have gone through the entire record.

 

So far as the ground of dismissal, on the point that the complaint of the complainant has been filed beyond limitation is concerned, it is assumable that since admittedly the disputed

6

 

suit which was alleged to have been stitched out of defective cloth upon which pilling had appeared within six months of purchase was lying with the respondent / non-complainant no. 1 upto 8.10.2010. The appellant/complainant could file the complaint within two years of the date of receipt i.e. 8.10.2010 as such since the complaint has been filed within two months of this date, it is held that complaint can be said to have been filed within limitation.

 

So far as factum of appearance of the pilling on the cloth is concerned, having perused the entire record including the impugned judgment meticulously, we find that the learned DCC has, during the pendency of complaint called for the disputed suit for personal observation and as per para 11 of the impugned judgment it is revealed that the President of the learned DCC Sikar alongwith other Members have inspected/ observed the suit and has found that no pilling (jCos ) was seen over the suit and has held that though the complainant has alleged that there was pilling over the disputed suit but on personal inspection by the President and Members of the learned DCC Sikar no pilling of any sort has been found on the suit. Having regard to this important observation of the

7

 

learned DCC, we are not in a position to take a different view because no reason or ground has been given by the learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant as to how this personal observation of the President and Members of the learned DCC can be ignored and the contention/ allegation of the appellant/complainant can be relied upon.

 

On the basis of above discussions we find that in view of the personal inspection/ observation of the President and Members of the learned DCC, the case of appellant/ complainant is found to be unreliable as such the impugned judgment of learned DCC is found to be correct in the eye of law and factually as well. Therefore, we find that the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

 

(Shobha Singh) (A.K.Chatterjee)

Member Member Judicial

 

nm