COMPLAINT FILED ON:28.12.2011
DISPOSED ON:07.08.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
7th DAY OF AUGUST 2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | Gita Swamy, 96/1, Shankarapark, Shankarpuram, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560 004. In person. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Royal Cleaners and Dyers, 39, Gandhi Bazaar, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560 004. In person. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant in person filed this complaint seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of coat and Rs.10,000/- as damages on the allegation of deficiency in service.
2. The case of the complainants to be stated in brief is that:
An imported Italian designer coat which was a part of a full suit belonging to her son who was on visit to India was given to OP Dry Cleaners for darning of a small patch and dry cleaning on 08.07.2011. OP did not deliver the coat and went on giving excuses and making up stories for not delivering the coat. After about six months, OP informed that the coat has been misplaced and offered to pay Rs.500/- as compensation. This is not acceptable by the complainant as the full suit along with the waist coat has become unusable. Her son went back to America long time back. Hence the complaint.
3. The proprietor of OP in person appeared and filed version admitting that the complainant has given coat for darning and for Dry cleaning on 08.07.2011, the condition of the coat was very old and fully damaged at the backside, with nearly 20 inches of patches, unfortunately the coat was misplaced by one of his staff, therefore, OP requested the complainant and offered Rs.1,000/- as compensation, as per the terms of the bill/receipt No.4308 Clause-5. OP has charged Rs.125/- for cleaning and Rs.150/- for darning. The complainant has not accepted the amount.
4. The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence. OP has also filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.
5. The complainant produced the letter obtained from her son who is staying at USA. In that letter it is stated that suit was given by his father in law in marriage on 26.03.2005 in New York. He used it sparingly and it was as good as new. He understand that his father in law had paid for that suit 1200$. There was a small tear of about an inch at the back of the coat. His mother has given that coat to OP and now he came to know that the coat has been misplaced.
6. Arguments on both sides heard.
7. The points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
Point No.2:-If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No.3:-To What order?
8. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:-Affirmative
Point No.2:-Affirmative in part
Point No.3:-As per final order.
R E A S O N S
9. At the outset it is not at dispute that on 08.07.2011 the complainant had given coat of her son for darning and Dry cleaning to OP. Unfortunately the said coat was misplaced by one of the staff of OP and Op has offered to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation but complainant has not accepted the same. The receipt issued by OP contains the terms and as per Clause-5 of the terms, it is stated that in case of any of loss of a garment the concern will only be responsible for a sum not exceeding 10 times the cleaning value of the garment. Thus as per this term, the 10 times of the cleaning charges i.e., Rs.150/- works out Rs.15000/-. The complainant has not produced any material in support of the fact that the cost of the entire suit including coat was of Rs.1200$ as mentioned in the letter issued by her son. The suit was given to the son of the complainant in his marriage by his father in law on 26.03.2005 as stated in the letter. The very fact of the coat having given for darning to set right the patch goes to show that the coat was sufficiently used and the same was old one. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cost of the coat which was lost was about Rs.15,000/- as claimed by the complainant. We are unable to accept the contention of OP that as per Clause-6 of the terms of the receipt, OP is not responsible for cloths which are not claimed within one months of receipt of the cloths. For the reason that the complainant has visited the OP claiming that coat within one month, but OP has postponed the delivery of the cloth of one or other reason, ultimately stated that the coat is misplaced. The very fact of Op having misplaced the coat amounts to deficiency in service on his part. As per the terms of the receipt, the complainant is entitled to 10 times of the cleaning charges which amounts to Rs.1500/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- towards the cost of the coat and pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 7th DAY of AUGUST-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
COMPLAINT FILED ON:28.12.2011
DISPOSED ON:07.08.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
7th DAY OF AUGUST 2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | Gita Swamy, 96/1, Shankarapark, Shankarpuram, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560 004. In person. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Royal Cleaners and Dyers, 39, Gandhi Bazaar, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560 004. In person. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant in person filed this complaint seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of coat and Rs.10,000/- as damages on the allegation of deficiency in service.
2. The case of the complainants to be stated in brief is that:
An imported Italian designer coat which was a part of a full suit belonging to her son who was on visit to India was given to OP Dry Cleaners for darning of a small patch and dry cleaning on 08.07.2011. OP did not deliver the coat and went on giving excuses and making up stories for not delivering the coat. After about six months, OP informed that the coat has been misplaced and offered to pay Rs.500/- as compensation. This is not acceptable by the complainant as the full suit along with the waist coat has become unusable. Her son went back to America long time back. Hence the complaint.
3. The proprietor of OP in person appeared and filed version admitting that the complainant has given coat for darning and for Dry cleaning on 08.07.2011, the condition of the coat was very old and fully damaged at the backside, with nearly 20 inches of patches, unfortunately the coat was misplaced by one of his staff, therefore, OP requested the complainant and offered Rs.1,000/- as compensation, as per the terms of the bill/receipt No.4308 Clause-5. OP has charged Rs.125/- for cleaning and Rs.150/- for darning. The complainant has not accepted the amount.
4. The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence. OP has also filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.
5. The complainant produced the letter obtained from her son who is staying at USA. In that letter it is stated that suit was given by his father in law in marriage on 26.03.2005 in New York. He used it sparingly and it was as good as new. He understand that his father in law had paid for that suit 1200$. There was a small tear of about an inch at the back of the coat. His mother has given that coat to OP and now he came to know that the coat has been misplaced.
6. Arguments on both sides heard.
7. The points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
Point No.2:-If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No.3:-To What order?
8. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:-Affirmative
Point No.2:-Affirmative in part
Point No.3:-As per final order.
R E A S O N S
9. At the outset it is not at dispute that on 08.07.2011 the complainant had given coat of her son for darning and Dry cleaning to OP. Unfortunately the said coat was misplaced by one of the staff of OP and Op has offered to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation but complainant has not accepted the same. The receipt issued by OP contains the terms and as per Clause-5 of the terms, it is stated that in case of any of loss of a garment the concern will only be responsible for a sum not exceeding 10 times the cleaning value of the garment. Thus as per this term, the 10 times of the cleaning charges i.e., Rs.150/- works out Rs.15000/-. The complainant has not produced any material in support of the fact that the cost of the entire suit including coat was of Rs.1200$ as mentioned in the letter issued by her son. The suit was given to the son of the complainant in his marriage by his father in law on 26.03.2005 as stated in the letter. The very fact of the coat having given for darning to set right the patch goes to show that the coat was sufficiently used and the same was old one. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cost of the coat which was lost was about Rs.15,000/- as claimed by the complainant. We are unable to accept the contention of OP that as per Clause-6 of the terms of the receipt, OP is not responsible for cloths which are not claimed within one months of receipt of the cloths. For the reason that the complainant has visited the OP claiming that coat within one month, but OP has postponed the delivery of the cloth of one or other reason, ultimately stated that the coat is misplaced. The very fact of Op having misplaced the coat amounts to deficiency in service on his part. As per the terms of the receipt, the complainant is entitled to 10 times of the cleaning charges which amounts to Rs.1500/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- towards the cost of the coat and pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 7th DAY of AUGUST-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
COMPLAINT FILED ON:28.12.2011
DISPOSED ON:07.08.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
7th DAY OF AUGUST 2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | Gita Swamy, 96/1, Shankarapark, Shankarpuram, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560 004. In person. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Royal Cleaners and Dyers, 39, Gandhi Bazaar, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560 004. In person. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant in person filed this complaint seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of coat and Rs.10,000/- as damages on the allegation of deficiency in service.
2. The case of the complainants to be stated in brief is that:
An imported Italian designer coat which was a part of a full suit belonging to her son who was on visit to India was given to OP Dry Cleaners for darning of a small patch and dry cleaning on 08.07.2011. OP did not deliver the coat and went on giving excuses and making up stories for not delivering the coat. After about six months, OP informed that the coat has been misplaced and offered to pay Rs.500/- as compensation. This is not acceptable by the complainant as the full suit along with the waist coat has become unusable. Her son went back to America long time back. Hence the complaint.
3. The proprietor of OP in person appeared and filed version admitting that the complainant has given coat for darning and for Dry cleaning on 08.07.2011, the condition of the coat was very old and fully damaged at the backside, with nearly 20 inches of patches, unfortunately the coat was misplaced by one of his staff, therefore, OP requested the complainant and offered Rs.1,000/- as compensation, as per the terms of the bill/receipt No.4308 Clause-5. OP has charged Rs.125/- for cleaning and Rs.150/- for darning. The complainant has not accepted the amount.
4. The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence. OP has also filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.
5. The complainant produced the letter obtained from her son who is staying at USA. In that letter it is stated that suit was given by his father in law in marriage on 26.03.2005 in New York. He used it sparingly and it was as good as new. He understand that his father in law had paid for that suit 1200$. There was a small tear of about an inch at the back of the coat. His mother has given that coat to OP and now he came to know that the coat has been misplaced.
6. Arguments on both sides heard.
7. The points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
Point No.2:-If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No.3:-To What order?
8. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:-Affirmative
Point No.2:-Affirmative in part
Point No.3:-As per final order.
R E A S O N S
9. At the outset it is not at dispute that on 08.07.2011 the complainant had given coat of her son for darning and Dry cleaning to OP. Unfortunately the said coat was misplaced by one of the staff of OP and Op has offered to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation but complainant has not accepted the same. The receipt issued by OP contains the terms and as per Clause-5 of the terms, it is stated that in case of any of loss of a garment the concern will only be responsible for a sum not exceeding 10 times the cleaning value of the garment. Thus as per this term, the 10 times of the cleaning charges i.e., Rs.150/- works out Rs.15000/-. The complainant has not produced any material in support of the fact that the cost of the entire suit including coat was of Rs.1200$ as mentioned in the letter issued by her son. The suit was given to the son of the complainant in his marriage by his father in law on 26.03.2005 as stated in the letter. The very fact of the coat having given for darning to set right the patch goes to show that the coat was sufficiently used and the same was old one. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cost of the coat which was lost was about Rs.15,000/- as claimed by the complainant. We are unable to accept the contention of OP that as per Clause-6 of the terms of the receipt, OP is not responsible for cloths which are not claimed within one months of receipt of the cloths. For the reason that the complainant has visited the OP claiming that coat within one month, but OP has postponed the delivery of the cloth of one or other reason, ultimately stated that the coat is misplaced. The very fact of Op having misplaced the coat amounts to deficiency in service on his part. As per the terms of the receipt, the complainant is entitled to 10 times of the cleaning charges which amounts to Rs.1500/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- towards the cost of the coat and pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 7th DAY of AUGUST-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
