BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.240 of 2016

Date of Instt. 02.06.2016

Date of Decision: 19.09.2017

Navjot @ Navjot Johal aged 26 years D/o Jagjit Johal, VPO Gumtala, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar Presently residing at 2151 Harkesell Road, Ferndale, Washington-98248 Through Attorney Ranjit Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, Age 50 years, R/o VPO Gumtala, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. Mobile No.98159-49301

..........Complainant

Versus

Sonu Sagar, Readymade Garments, Shop No.4-5, Thaper Market, Nurmahal, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar 144039 Through its Prop. (Yash Pal Chhabra)/Authorized Representative.

….… Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh, Attorney of the complainant.

Sh. HS Sandhu, Adv Counsel for OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by the complainant through attorney Ranjit Singh, wherein alleged that the date of marriage of the complainant was fixed on 27.10.2015 and for this purpose on 18.10.2015, the complainant gave an order to OP to prepare Lehnga, which delivery was promised to made on 25.10.2015 at 07:00 PM to complainant by OP. The order which was booked for preparation of Lehnga as detailed in the Bill was “ A Cut Lehnga, Golden Colour, Ambi-bore border + Kundan Work, to prepare Head Kuppa, Full Golden Arms with B Latkan, Size 42K34/1, superior quality cloth”. The OP demanded Rs.26,000/- for preparation of said Lehnga, out of which the complainant gave Rs.15,000/- as advance, which the OP received, vide invoice and the balance of Rs.11,000/- was to be paid on the date of delivery i.e. 25.10.2015. That on the date of delivery i.e. 25.10.2015, when the complainant went to take her above said Lehnga, the complainant was surprised to see that the said Lehnga was not prepared as per order of the complainant as mentioned in the bill. Instead of preparing the Lehnga as per order, the OP changed the design, colour and cloth of Lehnga with his own accord. Left side is the order booked by the complainant and right side is the photo of Lehnga, which the OP changed the design, colour and cloth. The OP tried his best to deliver the changed design, colour and cloth to complainant but the complainant refused to take the same. The complainant requested the OP either prepare the Lehnga within one day as per her order or return the advance paid amount as the marriage of complainant was to solemnize on 27.10.2015. But the OP refused to prepare the Lehnga as per order and to return the advance money of the complainant rather the OP threatened the complainant to go away and do what can be done against him as he is not afraid of any authority.

2. That the complainant left the said Lehnga with OP and on the next day visited him but the OP again told the complainant that he would give the Lehnga, which he had prepared and has no spare time to prepare the Lehnga as per order booked by the complainant. The marriage of the complainant was fixed on 27.10.2015. So, the complainant arranged another Lehnga from other place for her marriage by paying heavy amount. Complainant alongwith her Uncle visited several time the OP to take refund of advance paid amount of Rs.15,000/-, but every time OP refused to refund the said amount by stating that he will never refund the said amount and as such there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to refund the advance taken amount of Rs.15,000/- and also be directed to pay compensation for mental tension and harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as such and further alleged that no cause of action has arose to the complainant to file the present complaint and further stated that the present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the OP and further alleged that the complainant is estopped by its act and conduct from filing the present complaint as she herself is at fault and caused financial and business loss to the OP. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts from the Forum and concocted a false and vague story for his own accord, as such he is not entitled to any relief and further alleged that the complaint has not been filed by the competent person and even the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and even the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum. On merits, the factum in regard to put an order by the complainant for prepare a Lehnga and its price is also admitted Rs.26,000/-, out of which Rs.15,000/- was paid as advance money and remaining was agreed to be paid at the time of delivery of the Lehnga i.e. on 25.10.2015. Apart from that the OP alleged that the complainant had also chosen some article of jewelry and hired the same, to wear on other functions prior to wedding and the rent of those article was settled to be Rs.13,000/- and due date for the return of those article was 30.10.2015 and further alleged that in fact, the Lehnga was prepared as per description given by the complainant and on the colour and cloth chosen by the complainant, at the time of placing order and real facts are that on 24.10.2015, Ranjit Singh, who is the attorney of the complainant came alongwith another lady for their house came to the OP and stated that the complainant has changed her mind and has chosen another Lehnga from Jalandhar and she will wear that Lehnga on her wedding and they want to cancel the order of Lehnga which they placed few days ago, on which the OP told them that the Lehnga is already prepared according to the description stated by the complainant and you can take its delivery even today and present the prepared Lehnga alongwith the Lehnga whose design was copied with additional suggested by the complainant to prepare new Lehnga, for comparison before them. Looking at the Lehnga, that the lady praised the Lehnga prepared and told that though, the complainant is going to wear another Lehnga but some other girl can wear this and she expressed her wish to click the photograph of the Lehnga to show the same to other girls of the house and assured to take the delivery of the prepared Lehnga on the following day i.e. 25.10.2015. On the next day, when neither the complainant nor any of her relatives turned up to take the delivery of the Lehnga, the OP made a phone call to the complainant and asked them to take the delivery, upon which the complainant told that she is not going to wear the Lehnga prepared by the OP and started making lame excuses and comments upon the design and colour of the Lehnga prepared and as such there is no fault on the part of the OP and therefore the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, attorney of the complainant tendered into evidence two affidavits i.e. Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly counsel for the OP tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copy of bill of jewelry as Mark OP/1 and then closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the attorney of the complainant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After taking into consideration the over all circumstances as elaborated in the pleading of both the parties and find that the factum in regard to placing of an order for preparing a Lehnga for the complainant and its value of Rs.26,000/- and out of that Rs.15,000/- was paid as advance money and remaining amount of Rs.11,000/- was agreed to be paid on the day of the delivery i.e. 25.10.2015, is not in dispute.

8. The question remains whether the Lehnga was not prepared by the OP as per description given by the complainant i.e. in regard to design, colour and cloth of the Lehnga, for that purpose, the complainant alleged that she booked A cut Lehnga, Golden Colour, Ambi-bore border + Kundan Work, to prepare Head Kuppa, Full Golden Arms with B Latkan, Size 42K34/1, Superior Quality Cloth and this factum has been meet out by the OP, simply stating that they have prepared a Lehnga as per description given by the complainant but the complainant has chosen some other Lehnga from other shop and due to that reason they are making lame excuse for taking the delivery for the said Lehnga but in order to establish that the Lehnga, ordered by the complainant was not prepared by the OP as per description given by the complainant because the order placed by the complainant for preparing a Lehnga is shown in the picture Ex.C5 on left side, whereas the Lehnga prepared by the OP is visible on the right side on the photograph Ex.C5 and if we compared from the photo, then we can say with a naked eye that the quality and design of the Lehnga ordered by the complainant shown on left side is entirely different to the Lehnga prepared by the OP. So, it means that the OP miserably failed to prepare the same Lehnga as ordered by the complainant and due to that reason, the delivery of the said Lehnga was not taken by the complainant. So for the plea taken by the OP that the photographs of both the Lehnga was taken by one lady, who came with Ranjit Singh on the pretext that the complainant will not wear this Lehnga but some other girl can wear the said Lehnga and therefore they will take its delivery on 25.10.2015 but this concocted story of the OP is not digest, for the reason, if the lady so come with Ranjit Singh made a pretext that the Lehnga will be wear by some other girl, then why the OP placed both the Lehnga before the said lady for taking a photographs. They can put only one Lehnga, which was prepared for delivery for taking a photo. So, from this angle, if see the story of the OP, then the same seems to be false, self made, concocted story just to deny the right of the complainant for return of the advance money.

9. Apart from above, the OP has also made an other story that the complainant took some ornaments on hire basis and she has to pay for that a sum of Rs.13,000/- regarding that the OP has placed on the file the photostat copy of the bill Mark OP/1, but this bill itself shows that the said bill is prepared by the OP later on just to create a difference because if any delivery of the artificial ornaments was given on hire basis, then the signature of the complainant or any other person, who took the delivery was very much necessary on the said receipt but the receipt Mark OP/1 is not signed by the complainant or any her relative. So, this bill produced by the complainant is also not having any relevancy in this case.

10. Further more in order to establish the case, the attorney the complainant has brought on the file his own affidavit Ex.CA, whereby reiterated the entire facts as detailed in the complaint and further he controverted the plea taken by the OP, in written statement is further falsified by the attorney of the complainant by filing an affidavit Ex.CB and further complainant also brought on the file bill Ex.C4, which shows that Rs.15,000/- was paid as advance and Rs.11,000/- was remained balance and description of the Lehnga was well described on the bill but according to this description the Lehnga, so shown in the photograph Mark C5 is not prepared according to that description. So, accordingly we find that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

11. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly accepted and OP is directed to return the advance amount of Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of placing order i.e. 18.10.2015 till realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation for mental harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

19.09.2017 Member President