JUDGMENT 6.10.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by Opposite party is directed against the order dated 15.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.1497 of 2009 of respondent/complainant was allowed with costs of Rs.1100/- and appellant/OP was directed to pay to the complainant Rs.6000/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which OP was made liable to pay the amount with penal interest @ 12% p.a. from 21.11.2008 till payment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that for the marriage of the complainant which was to be solemnized on 15.11.2008 he purchased clothes on different dates vide different bills. At the time of the purchase of the wedding clothes, it was assured by the representative/salesman of the OP that they would be responsible for its quality. It was alleged that on 21.9.2008 two suits i.e. of blue print and one silk shirt of rust colour got damaged as the cloth lost its strength on stitching. The complainant informed OP about the same and returned both the suits to them on 21.11.2008 and the it was assured by OP that the suits would be replaced with new ones by 4.12.2008. Thereafter, complainant visited OP several times to get the replacement of suits but to no effect. He then sent legal notice dated 7.9.2009 calling upon it to replace the defective suits but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 3. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that when the clothes were purchased by the complainant, it was specifically instructed that the suits were required to be dry-cleaned only but the suits were wet washed by the complainant due to which the cloth was damaged. It was pleaded that the OP was a mere seller of the cloth and not the manufacturer, so as such OP could not be held liable for any manufacturing defect. However, OP offered to repair the suit but complainant refused to receive the repaired suit & shirt. 4. The learned District Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, OP has come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the OP is that the suits were of silk quality and the same required dry-cleaning and that fact was mentioned on the bill and it was also disclosed at the time of purchase that there was no guarantee of durability, colour and zari of such clothes. The defects in cloth regarding flowered, mettled and flecked could not occur on the silk cloth by simple wearing as these defects come on the silk cloth in case the same is wet-washed. The fault of worn out stitching on the suits was not because of the fault of OPs but it was because of tight fitting stitching of the suit. However, these points of arguments have been repelled by the learned counsel for complainant. 6. There is not dispute about the purchase of suits in question from OP. The defects pointed out by the complainant in the cloth are not denied. However, the only plea of OP is that the stitched suits were wet washed and not dry-cleaned and as such these defects occurred. However, there is deposition of the complainant that the suits were not wet-washed. The learned District Forum rightly observed that had the suits been wet-washed OP would have mentioned this fact on two important occasions, firstly in the receipt dated 21.11.2008 when the suits were handed over to it and secondly it should have promptly sent reply to the legal notice mentioning the negligence of the complainant. Further, there is no cogent and convincing evidence on the file to prove that the suits were wet-washed by the complainant and the said defects occurred due to wet-washing. Thus, the District Forum rightly ordered OP to pay the cost of said defective suits which was assessed at Rs.6000/-. 7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. Thus, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.2200/-. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
