Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/312/2023

M/S DRESSCO - Complainant(s)

Versus

RIDHIMA THAKUR - Opp.Party(s)

SATISH KUMAR

01 May 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	312 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	10.11.2023
Date of Decision	:	01.05.2024

 

M/s Dressco, B-IV-996, Rura Mal Street, Ludhiana, Punjab through its
Proprietor/Partner Nilish Aggarwal.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

VERSUS

Ridhima Thakur W/o Sh. Nitin aged 41 years R/o Flat No.1028, Tower G, Escon Arena Apartment, Nagla Road, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

…..Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Sourabh, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ORDER

         

                   By filing the present appeal the Opposite Party has laid challenge to order dated 11.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short District Commission) partly allowing the complaint of the complainant (respondent herein) by directing the appellant to refund Rs.30,300/- alongwith interest and compensation. Before the District Commission it was the case of the respondent that she bought hoodies and lower for the students in the Kindergarten School run by her for earning her livelihood by way of self-employment by making payment of Rs.30,300/- to the appellant. However, those dresses got faided due to poor quality material after few days of its purchase which amounted to unfair trade practice resulting into filing of consumer complaint before the District Commission by the respondent claiming refund of the amount paid.

2.           The appellant contested the complaint by filing its reply. It took preliminary objections qua complainant not being a consumer and also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission. On merits, it was stated that appellant clearly mentioned in Annexure P-6 & P-7 that they do not take guarantee of the fabric and still on good terms the opposite party is ready to return Rs.4500/- to the respondent in good faith.
3. In appeal, the appellant has stated that the District Commission wrongly decided the preliminary objections qua the complainant being not consumer and District Commission not having the requisite territorial jurisdiction, in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Apart from it, it has been stated that the complainant already sold the materials to the students and had it been not so done, she would not have stopped herself from producing the material before the District Commission in order to prove her complaint. It has further been stated that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence on record and arbitrarily allowed the complaint.
4.          On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has argued that the District Commission has passed the order under appeal after due appreciation of factual position of record and the documentary evidence led by both the parties. He further argued that when the matter with regard to quality of the product purchased by the respondent was brought to the notice of the appellant, the appellant did not pay any heed to the request of the respondent and refused to refund the amount. Rather they offered a refund of Rs.4500/- to the respondent as a goodwill gesture and in good faith just to evade its liability to refund the entire amount paid by the respondent. Lastly prayer for dismissal of the appeal with cost has been made by the respondent.
5.         After hearing the rival contention of the parties and going through the material available on record and the written arguments very carefully and also the impugned order we are of the concerted view that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here that firstly the unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant is very much galore from the documentary evidence on record especially Annexure-C1 vide which the respondent paid an amount of Rs.30,300/- to the appellant through Google pay/UPI transaction on 26.02.2022 towards the purchase of the dresses, against which, the appellant issued tax invoice dated 26.02.2022 in the sum of Rs.12,936/- only. Secondly, the objections raised by the appellant with regard to the respondent not being a consumer as she is running a business of kindergarten School at Rohru, Himachal Pradesh, which amounted to a commercial activity and further laying challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission for the reason that the Kindergarten school is being run at Rohru, Himachal Pradesh as stated above, have rightly been rejected by the District Commission vide impugned order holding that the complainant is running a Kindergarten School for earning her livelihood by way of self-employment. As such, she is a consumer as per the definition of consumer as provided under section 2 sub-section 7 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
6.    Based on the evidence presented before the District Commission below, it seems clear that the respondent/complainant has a strong case against the appellant/Opposite Party. The whatsapp messages (Annexures C-5 to C-7) exchanged between the parties, highlight the dissatisfaction regarding the quality of the school dresses, which were not up to the promised standards. Additionally, the provided photos of the dresses demonstrate that their condition deteriorated shortly after purchase, further confirming the inferior quality. Furthermore, the complainant's legal notice sent through an advocate demanding a refund of Rs.30,300/- coupled with the Opposite Party’s failure to comply, strengthens the argument against the Opposite Party. The failure to issue an invoice for the full amount of Rs.30,300/- for the sold products indicates unfair trade practices on the part of the Opposite Party. Given this evidence, it’s reasonable to conclude that the Opposite Party not only sold defective goods but also engaged in unfair trade practices, which the learned District Commission had rightly held in its order. It may be added here that during the pendency of present appeal before this Commission, the respondent personally appeared and showed us the school dress i.e. hoodie purchased from the appellant which was full of fuzz on its outer side, which proved the sub-standard quality of the said product. The judgment relied upon by the appellant in case Kumari Surya Shukla and Others Vs. State of U.P. And Others, Writ Petition No.3173 (MS) of 2005 decided on 04.04.2007 by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court is of no help to the appellant being distinguishable on facts.
7. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order impugned passed by the District Commission allowing the consumer complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
8. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
9. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
10.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge forthwith.
11. File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

 

Pronounced

01.05.2024

 

 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

 MEMBER

Ad/-