Date of filing: 31.12.2018 Date of disposal: 25.11.2019
Complainant: Ashok Kumar Mathur, S/o. Late Jagapati Mathur, resident of Bhatchala, Ranirmath, PO: Seipally, District: Purba Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.
Opposite Parties: RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, represented by its Manager, having its office at 74/68, Kalna Road, Opposite of Burdwan Head Post Office, Near Curzon Gate, PO. & PS: Burdwan, District: Purba Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Ms. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Shri Sailaranjan Das.
Appeared for the Complainant: In person.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Rajesh Kumar Biswas.
J U D G E M E N T
The Consumer Complaint bearing No. 225/2018 has been filed by Ashok Kumar Mathur (herein stated as complainant) u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act.
The fact in brief is that the complainant had gone to Reliance Retail Limited show room, Gateway, Bardhaman (herein called OP) on 01.11.2018 along with her maid servant made purchase worth Rs. 9,015=00 in total which included one Kurta costing Rs. 899=00. He purchased the Kurta for his maid servant.
On 19.11.2018 the maid servant of the complainant used the Kurta for the first time and noticed the product was defective and the fibers were torn.
The complainant went to the OP on 22.11.2018 along with the garment along with the relevant bill for replacement. However, the OP refused to replace the garment.
Being aggrieved by the refusal of the OP to replace the garment the instant CC has been filed seeking the following reliefs.
- Directing the OP to replace the garment in question with a new same good quality of garment (Kurta) by holding them liable for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
- Directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 00,000=00 as compensation to your complainant as the suffered huge mental pain and agony and harassment.
- Directing the OP to pay Rs. 50,000=00 for litigation cost.
The petition of complaint has been rebutted by the OP by way of filing a written version.
In the written version it has been stated that the complainant has not approached the Ld. Forum with clean hands. At the averments made in the complaint have been denied.
It has been averred that after purchasing the Kurta the same was used by the maid servant of the complainant for 20 days from 1st November and thereafter the same has been brought for replacement alleging the product as defective. And since the return policy stipulates that the sold product will be treated as returnable only when I and No. 2 …………………. The return policy is printed on the reverse of Tax Invoice.
OP has further averred that since OP is only one of the stores or selling outlet it has no liability for any manufacturing defect.
Op has prayed for dismissal of the case in limine with exemplary cost.
The complainant has submitted evidence on affidavit. The pith and substance of the evidence is that Kurta was purchased by the complainant on 01.11.2018 and the maid servant used the same for the first time on 19.11.2018 and noticed that the cloth of the Kurta is defective and its fibers are torn. The agents in the showroom of the OP refused to replace the Kurta. Hence, the instant complaint.
We have perused all the relevant records and documents. The rival parties did not opt for filing questionnaire.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant was heard on 27.09.2019. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that his client had purchased the Kurta from the OP on 01.11.2018 for use by his client’s maid servant. The maid servant used it for the first time on 19.11.2018 while using the Kurta she noticed that the cloth was torn and the fabric was rotten. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP on 22.11.2018. Even though it was within one month from the date of purchase from the OP refused to replace the Kurta.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant further submitted that his client had made a written complaint in the Customers’ Grievance Register and also in the Official Face book page of Reliance Trends on 22.11.2018 but it yielded no result. Therefore the Ld. Counsel pressed for grant of the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP submits that the Consumer Complaint filed by the complainant has no merits. Also the complainant has suppressed material facts to mislead the Ld. Forum in order to benefit from pecuniary gain which he is not entitled to in the eye of law.
The ld. Counsel for OP submitted that while the complainant purchased the Kurta Along with other garments from his clients on 01.11.2018 he came to the show room of the OP on 19.11.2018, i.e., after a lapsed of 18 days. Ld. Counsel also has drawn our attention to the averment made by the complainant in Para 3 of the Consumer Complaint wherein it has been averred that the maid servant used the Kurta on 19.11.2018 thereby establishing the fact that the Kurta was used before being brought for replacement by the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the OP has drawn our attention to the return policy of the OP as printed on the reverse of the Tax Invoice which read as follows:
RETURN POLICY
- We strive to insure that every product you purchase is of the highest quality through stringent quality checks.
- If you are dissatisfied with any of our products, we will be happy to replace them for you with 30 days of purchase on presentation of the original Invoice to the same store.
- All products returned should be in unused, undamaged, unwashed and saleable condition.
- Credit none issued for onetime use will be valid for three months.
- In case where the garment is not tailored as per the customer’s specification the store shall refund the fabric amount through a credit note and tailoring will not be charged.
- Store reserves the right to decide he used or washed state of the garment.
- You may exchange the entire set of bundled products with a single price point, not the damaged price alone.
- No replacement is offered for products purchased under promotional schemes or discounts.
- For your protection, we will not accept the return of undergarments, cocks and swimwear.
- We request you to contact customer services for further information.
So, as per the return policy of the OP, the OP is not liable to replace the garment if the same is used and not in a resalable condition. Since in the instant case the Kurta has been used by the maid servant as also averred in Para 3 of the Consumer Complaint, the OP is not liable to replace the Kurta.
We have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels for both the parties, perused records and all the relevant documents annexed therewith.
The moot point that needs to be answered is whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the Kurta (garment) which he purchased from the OP on the ground that the same was torn and its fabric was rotten which …………… to unfair trade practice.
We observe from the averment made by the complainant in the Consumer Complaint that the disputed article, i.e., the Kurta was purchased on 01.11.2018.
The normal nature of a customer proposing to buy an article is to check the same before buying. Surprisingly there is no whisper in the averment on this count. Had it been checked after returning home even then the defects could have been detected.
The nature of defect is reported to be such that it did not require wearing the same. Therefore on 19.11.2018 what occasioned the maid servant to use the same to find the defect has not been stated wither in the averment of the Consumer Complaint or in the evidence on affidavit.
Also it has been stated in Para 3 of the averment that the Kurta was used by the maid servant.
A document attached to the records which is a print out of the posting made by the complainant in the Face book Page of Reliance which reads as follows:
From the above posts it becomes a virtual admission by the complainant that the Kurta was used and washed whereas this fact has not been mentioned by the complainant.
In view of the above we have no hesitation to conclude that the Kurta purchased by the complainant from the OP was indeed used before being brought to the OP for replacement. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for replacement and the same being contrary to the return policy of OP.
Also the complainant was suppressed the fact that the Kurta was indeed used and washed. Since the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands he is not entitled to any relief.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 225/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost being bereft of any merit and also because of suppression of facts.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Sailaranjan Das) DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
(Sailaranjan Das) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
