DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/15/26 of 21/01/2015
Decided on 28/04/2015
Sudarshan Kaur Walia W/o S. Tejwant Singh Walia, Advocate, R/o B-28/460, B- Tank Road, Patiala.
….Complainant.
Versus
S. Lakhmir Singh, Proprietor, Glowhite Dry Cleaners, The Mall, Patiala.
….Opposite party.
Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the
Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member
Present:
For Complainant : Sh. Tejwant Singh Walia Advocate
For Opposite party : Sh. Amandeep Singh Advocate.
ORDER
NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:
1. The complainant had given a silk suit for dry cleaning on 6/12/2014 to OP, which was to be delivered after dry cleaning on 09/12/2014. The complainant had purchased this suit for an amount of Rs.3200/- and an amount of Rs.1000/- was spent on embroidery and another sum of Rs.1000/- for its stitching. The said suit at the time of handing over to OP was having greasy stains and before accepting the suit for dry cleaning, the staff/ workers/ employees had very minutely checked the whole suit in the presence of the complainant and her husband and specific instructions were given to OP for getting the stains removed in dry cleaning. It is further averred that when the complainant went to take the delivery of the dry cleaned suit, she was astonished to see that her shirt stood torn /damaged from the front side at 3 places and the arm-pits of the shirt were also got stitched manually with the help of needle and thread. As far as the 'Salwar' of the suit is concerned, it was also torn from “Muri/ poncha' and on the asking of the complainant, she was told that the suit hand not been dry cleaned because of its already torn condition. But the complainant was surprised to see that there were no stains visible on the shirt. On enquiry, the complainant was told that the said 'Poncha' of the salwar had been got stitched as a matter of courtesy and goodwill inspite of the fact that no instruction was even given in writing by the complainant to do so but in fact the same was got done by OP in order to hide the torn portion of the salwar.
2. It is further averred that after heated discussion with the staff members of the OP, when they did not agree to compensate the complainant, the complainant came back but as soon as the husband of the complainant stepped out of the shop, immediately a person commonly known as 'Mama Ji' who is the brother-in-law of S. Lakhmir Singh, came out and requested for settlement of the dispute, on which the husband of the complainant asked 'Mama Ji' to come to his house and settle the dispute with the complainant and by 11.30 AM Mamaji reached the house of the complainant and suggested to settle the dispute amicably. 'Mama Ji' assured the complainant that he will get fresh piece of silk cloth and get it dyed, embroidered and stitched and the complainant will not be able to differentiate between the original suit and the fresh stitched suit. After 2-3 days the complainant got a telephonic message that no such cloth was available and hence nothing could be done.
3. Thus tearing / damaging of the suit of the complainant before/after dry cleaning amounted to deficiency in efficiency and carelessness in service of the OP.
4. On 8/01/2015, the complainant served a legal notice upon the Op to which the Op gave a reply which is absolutely false and concocted one. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).
5. On notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. After admitting that the complainant gave it a lady coat and a lady silk suit for dry cleaning which were to be delivered on 9/12/2014. OP has altogether denied the fact that the 'suit' was checked by the staff of the OP at the time of accepting the same. It is averred by OP that due to rush of work, no check up is possible at the counter, rather the clothes are checked by the technical staff of OP before starting the process of dry cleaning and if any defect is found out, the same is pointed out to the staff and further conveyed to the customer on telephone. It is further averred that even if the version of the complainant is presumed to be correct, complainant is only entitled to 25 % of the original cost of the suit or 5 times the charges of the dry cleaning if dry cleaned as per the terms and conditions written on the back side of the Invoice. After denying all other allegations, going against the OP, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. In support of her case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and her counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand on behalf of OP, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Lakhmir Singh along with the document Ex.OP-1 and closed its evidence.
7. The complainant filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence placed on record.
8. Ex.C-1 is the copy of invoice whereby the complainant gave her silk suit for dry cleaning to op on 06/12/2014. It is alleged by the complainant that when she gave her suit for dry cleaning, the staff of OP very minutely checked the suit at the time of accepting the same. But when she went to collect the suit after dry cleaning, she was astonished to see that the shirt stood torn/ damaged from the front side at three places and the arm-pits of the shirt were also got stitched manually. So far as the 'Salwar' is concerned, that too stood torn from 'Muri/ Poncha' , which the OP got stitched as a matter of courtesy without having any instructions from the complainant. The Only plea taken by OP is that due to rush of work, no-check up is possible at the counter rather the clothes are checked by its technical staff before starting the process of dry cleaning and if any defect is found out, the same is pointed out to the staff and further conveyed to the customer telephonically. As regards their liability to compensate the customer, it has pleaded that their liability is limited as per terms and conditions written on the back of the Invoice.
9. In the present case, the customer has not to suffer for the carelessness of the employees of the OP. It was the duty of the employees of OP to check the clothes before accepting the same.
10. Sh. Amandeep Singh, counsel for the OP placed reliance upon the citation M/s Wonderclean Vs M. Shaj ( K. S. C. R. C.) Law Finder Doc Id# 560805 2000 (1) C. P. J. 492 of the Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Shashi Tandon Vs Deepak Batra (DSCDC): Law Finder Doc Id # 590539 2014 (1) C. P. J. 110 of the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
11. We have considered the submissions. There is no dispute about the fact that OP accepted the lady's suit of the complainant for dry cleaning without any objection raised at the time of accepting the same. The plea taken up by the OP that the garment is checked throughly by the technician at the time of dry cleaning and that in case any defect in the garment is found, the same is conveyed to the customer can not be accepted because it is the responsibility of the OP to check the garment before accepting the same for dry cleaning. It would only go to show that plea taken up by the OP that the shirt at the time of starting the process of dry cleaning was found torn seems to be made up one because the suit was handed over for dry cleaning vide receipt Ex.C-1 dt. 6/12/2014 and the delivery of the dry cleaned cloth was made on 09/12/2014. Some thing had gone wrong with the OP which resulted into tearing of the shirt from back side. Now they want to shift the responsibility upon the complainant which can not be accepted. The deficiency/ negligence on the part of the Op is further highlighted from the fact that the pounchas/ mouris of the Salwar were also found to be repaired at two places qua the stitches in the armpits.
12. As regards the citation M/s Wonderclean Vs M. Shaj ( Supra) and Shashi Tandon Vs Deepak Batra ( Supra) relied upon by the ld. counsel for the OP so as to limit the liability of the OP to the extent of amount given in the terms and conditions given in the receipt/ invoice, the said terms and conditions as given on the reverse of Ex.C-1 are not binding upon the complainant because the same are not shown to have been signed by the complainant. In the case of the citation “Tirtha Traders Vs Blaze Flash Courier Ltd. & Anr. 2010 (1) CPC 731 Hon'ble H. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla observed as under:-
“8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, as well as after going through the record of the case, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum below is not legally sustainable. Reason being that the District Forum below had wrongly placed reliance on terms and conditions contained in consignment note Annexure C-1, while indemnifying the appellant to the extent of Rs.100/- only. As these terms and conditions contained of Annexure C-1 are not binding upon the appellant, for want of signatures of the appellant/sender on it. Thus there is no concluded contract between the parties. Thus the District Forum below had wrongly given undue weight to the terms and conditions of annexure C-1. Relevant potion thereof is extracted hereinbelow:-
“......... that liability of Blazeflash for any loss or damage to the consignment in transit or for any delay in delivery of the consignment shall be strictly restricted/ limited to Rs.100/- for each domestic consignment and Rs.1,000/- for each international consignment..........”.
13. In our case the ld. counsel for the OP made a reference to condition no.6 printed on the reverse of the receipt Ex.C-1 which provides: “In the event of loss or damage for which the firm will have option of either replacing the damaged/ lost article or pay 25% of the original cost of the article or five time the sum charged in voucher overleaf which ever is less”. The said term being unilateral can not be thrusted upon the complainant, as Ex.C-1 was not signed by the complainant.
14. Now coming to the liability of the OP to compensate the complainant regarding the damage caused to the shirt as also the salwar which are made of very fine silk, it was stated by the ld. counsel for the OP that now a days said type of silk is not available in the market and now they are not in a position to purchase the cloth of said texture and quality. He also submitted that complainant has not produced any evidence to show that cloth of the suit was purchased for Rs.3200/- and complainant paid Rs.1000/- for the work of embroidery got done or that she got stitched the suit for Rs.1000/-. It is a matter of common knowledge and experience that the customers after purchasing the cloth do not retain the bill when the clothes are got stitched because nobody can apprehend for such an eventuality. In any way taking into account the quality of the cloth of the suit, we are certainly of the view that same could not be purchased for less than 3200/- and we can not disbelieve the plea of the complainant that she has got done the work of embroidery for Rs.1000/- and that she paid Rs.1000/- for stitching of the same.
15. Because of the suit having been damaged the same is of no use for the complainant. The silk suit can be very dear to the complainant as she may be wearing the same on special functions like marriage party, birthday or any other celebrations. We therefore, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.5200/- to the complainant towards the price of the suit, including the cost of stitching and embroidery. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.5000/- which also includes the amount of compensation for the harassment and humiliation. The Op shall collect the suit in question from the Ahlmad of the Forum after the expiry of the time allowed for appeal and in case the appeal is preferred, subject to the decision of the appeal. Order be complied within a period of one month of the receipt of the copy of the order.
Pronounced
Dated: 28/04/2015.
Sonia Bansal D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta
Member President Member
