JUDGEMENT
This appeal relates to the final order passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri dated 20/06/2018 in CC No. 74/S/2016. The case in our hand in nutshell is that the respondent Smt. Sweta Ghosh filed a consumer complaint before Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri bearing no. CC/74/S/2016 to the effect that on 05/08/2014 the respondent. Complainant had handed over two expensive sarees for dry cleaning to the appellant laundry styled as Absolute Hygiene care at Siliguri. Out of two sarees one was dhakai jamdani worth Rs. 10,250/- an the another was Silk saree worth Rs. 8,700/-. At the time of receiving two sarees, the appellant/OP establishment had examined the sarees thoroughly and found that the sarees were not in defective condition. Accordingly, the appellant issued a dry-cleaning bill vide no. 5686 after charging amount of Rs. 220/- and asked the respondent to come on 14/08/2014 to receive the sarees in cleaning condition.
On 14/08/2014 the respondent/complainant came to the appellant shop to receive the two sarees where she found that out of two sarees one that is dhakai jamdani washed in a damaged condition. While seeing the damaged condition, the respondent/complainant started to refuse to accept the sarees in damaged condition then the shop keeper abused her and started misbehave with her. The Complainant/respondent had refused to take back the Dhakai Jamdani saree. She asked the shop keepers to hand over the other saree but the appellant refused to hand over the other saree unless the damaged saree also to be taken from them. The complainant/respondent finding no other alternative had come before the Ld. Forum claiming compensation Rs. 50,000. The price of the two sarees Rs. 18,950/- and litigation cost Rs. 15,000. The OP/appellant had appeared before Ld. Forum and defended the case by filing written version and mentioned before forum in written version that the dhakai jamdani saree was in damaged condition at the time of handing over it to the appellant shop and the manager of the laundry shop had refused to accept the said saree for dry cleaning as “fissure” was present on the dhakai jamdani saree. But ultimately on the request of the complainant/respondent the appellant was compelled to receive the dhakai jamdani saree for dry cleaning. The further case of the appellant/OP is that there was no negligence on their part at the time of cleaning the saree and the complainant/respondent had intentionally refused to accept the saree and unnecessary demanded the price of the saree which is not within responsibility of the appellant authority. And as such the appellant opposite parties wanted to dismiss the consumer complaint. Ld. Forum after hearing the both sides came to conclusion that there was a clear deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP and for that reason, the appellant/OP no. 1 and 2 were asked to pay refund of the amount of the two sarees to the tune of Rs. 18,950/- and compensation for mental harassment Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 5,000/-. Being aggrieved with the order the appellant/OP has preferred this appeal on the grounds that Ld. Forum has misconceived the facts and circumstances of the case and wrongly established the negligence of the appellant/OP and the order of Ld. Forum is arbitrary, illegal and not vested with the law. Memo of appeal was admitted as it was preferred within statutory period and the respondent/complainant was issued a notice who appears through Ld. Advocate and contested the appeal through her conducting Ld. Advocate. Appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides.
D E C I S I O N S W I T H R E A S O N S
The Ld. Forum at the time of adjudication of dispute fixed five points and all the points were decided in favour of the respondent/complainant. Regarding point no. 1 to 3 nothing contrary has revealed before this Commission at the time of hearing the appeal as complainant/respondent had right cause of action and she is a bona fide consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Regarding point no. 4 and 5 the Ld. Forum had decided that the appellant’s explanation of “fissure” found in the dhakai jamdani was not the valid ground for the damage of dhakai jamdani saree and it was utter negligence on the part of the appellant at the time of cleaning the saree and damaged the same. And for that reason, the forum was compelled to ask the complainant to pay compensation. The Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of hearing argument also submitted a written note of argument and mentioned that at the time of receiving the saree for dry cleaning had issued an invoice where the presence of “fissure” was mentioned and the complainant/respondent was aware about the existence of the said “fissure” in the saree and in spite of that she insisted the appellant shop to take the risk of cleaning the saree in spite of presence the “fissure”. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of argument submitted that the complainant/respondent has made false statement before the Ld. Forum that he had handed over the two sarees for dry cleaning but the invoice speaks that one Smt. Sudipta Bhowmick had come on behalf of the complainant to hand over sarees and in her presence the word “fissure” was inserted in the invoice. It is further mentioned on the part of the appellant that the appellant was always ready to hand over the two sarees but the complainant/respondent had refused to accept the said two sarees and demanded money for the price of the two sarees while the appellant had no responsibility to give them the prices of the said two sarees. It is further argued that the complainant/respondent had filed a forged bill to show the prices of the two sarees but the said bill had no seal or tax invoice and the said bill is nothing but a manufactured document and forged one. It is further argued on the part of the appellant that in the invoice bill which was handed over to the respondent/complainant there was a clause that if any defect like holes, scratches, strains etc. become apparent during washing process, the remarks of the factory in charge will be final and legal binding on the customer.
The respondent side has also filed a written note of argument and mentioned before the Commission that actually the term “tissue” has been inserted in the bill.
The term “fissure” is a technical term which does not use generally by any laundry owner as it is a geological term and instead of “fissure” actually the word “tissue” was inserted in the invoice and now to take a defense the appellant side wants to use the word “fissure” replacing the word “tissue”. It is further argued on the part of the respondent that the admitted position was that the appellant has taken the two sarees in their custody and thereafter one was damaged by them during handling the same and when the appellant was tried to hand over the damaged saree to the respondent, the respondent had the good cause not to receive the saree and claim the price of the saree as appellant was responsible for damaging the said valuable saree.
After hearing both sides it is established that one saree out of two sarees is now in good condition and there was no contentious issue in receiving the good saree. The silk saree is now in good condition and for that reason the appellant should not be responsible for handing over the price of the good saree also to the respondent and respondent is at liberty to receive the saree which is in good condition. On the other hand, after perusing the document that is the invoice issued by the appellant, the term “fissure” is not apparently readable condition. On the other hand, the invoice contains the term which is apparently visible as “tissue” and another term C.F. So, the question of “fissure” is not at all visible in the invoice, the term “fissure” is also not related to C.F whereas the word “tissue” is related to C.F so, it is mere acceptable to hold that in the invoice the term “tissue” and C.F was inserted by the person attached to the appellant shop who had received the two sarees from the complainant side for dry cleaning. Thus, there is no hesitation to hold that one of the sarees that is dhakai jamdani was in damaged condition at the time of delivery on 14/08/2014 which was rightly refused to accept by the complainant side. So, for that reason the deficiency of service on the part of the appellant has become palpably clear. And for that reason, Ld. Forum has rightly asked to pay compensation. Ld. Forum has asked the appellant to pay the prices of two sarees total Rs. 18,950/- which seems to be defective one as because the silk saree is in right condition. Complainant/respondent had no authority to refuse in accepting the said silk saree and for that reason the appellant should not be compelled to pay the price of the said silk saree. On the other hand, the order of Ld. Forum to ask the price of the dhakai jamdani saree worth Rs. 10,250 is found correct one and in this score this Commission should not interfere with the said order. The amount of compensation awarded by the Ld. Forum is also excessive one and that amount should be narrowed down to Rs. 5,000/-. And the litigation cost awarded in favour of the respondent Rs. 5,000 should be reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. The remaining portion of the order of the Ld. Forum appears to be reasonable and correct one. The complainant/respondent is at liberty to receive the silk saree in good condition from the appellant at any point of time and the appellant is duty bound to hand over the said silk saree in good condition to the respondent whenever she comes to demand.
Hence it is ordered: -
That the instant appeal be and the same is hereby disposed of in the following manner: -
- The OP no. 1 and 2 will be liable to pay price of dhakai jamdani saree to the respondent worth Rs. 10,250. And they will hand over the silk saree to the complainant/respondent whenever she comes to take the same.
- The compensation amount awarded by Ld. Forum is hereby reduced to Rs. 5,000/- and the litigation cost awarded by the Ld. Forum should be reduced to Rs. 2,000/-.
- The interest at the rate of 9 per cent will carry upon Rs. 10,250 if fails to pay the same Rs. 10,250 within 45 days from the date of this order.
The copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri.
