Versus
- Sourav Bansal, Mycleaners, Office 713-F, Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Near Passi Chowk, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, 141013 Through its Partner/Proprietor.
- Mycleaners, Registered Office, 29, Sarai Juliana, New Friends Colony, New Delhi,110025 Through its Authorized Signatory.
…..Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
SH. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Ms. Richa in person.
For OP1 : None.
For OP2 : Complaint against OP2 stands already dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.11.2022.
ORDER
PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that on 10.12.2019, the complainant and her husband purchased a coat at Louis Philippe Store, Pavilion Mall, Ludhiana for gifting her husband before their wedding ceremonies started from 21.12.2019 and their marriage was solemnized on 04.01.2020. The complainant handed over the said XL size coat to OP1 for dry clean on 04.012.2021, which was delivered at her house after dry-cleaning. The complainant further stated that on wearing the coat, her husband found it shrunken and faded. The said coat did not fit her husband as the inner fabric of coat became much longer than the outer fabric of the coat. The complainant contacted OP2 and informed regarding shrinkage of coat and OP2 further informed OP1 regarding shrinkage of coat upon which OP1 said that it is not his fault and coat being made of 100% wool had shrunk. However, employee of OP1 took the coat from the complainant with assurance to do the needful. After three days, husband of the complainant went to OP1 and wore the coat in front of OP1 which again could not fit him. The complainant made a call to OP2 for claim of loss suffered by her but OPs are not ready to pay the cost of coat by refusing their fault. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to pay Rs.9,999/- as cost of the coat, to pay Rs.290/- as dry-cleaning charges and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension, agony etc.
2. The complaint as against OP2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.11.2022.
3. Upon notice, OP1 appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability; the complaint being filled with ulterior motive; misleading the Court etc. OP1 averred that it has performed his duties and always tried his level best to give best services to all his customers including the complainant. OP1 claimed that it, after exercising utmost care in dry-cleaning, processed the said article in question and the complainant before taking delivery got inspected the article by all means and after putting due diligence and satisfaction, she received the delivery of the said article without raising a single objection. However, on receiving complaint from OP2 on phone, OP1 again dry-cleaned the coat to satisfaction of the complainant. Both the times, OP1 had delivered the article to the complainant in fit condition after getting inspected by the complainant. For maintaining cordial relation, OP1 had offered the complainant free services worth Rs.1500/- i.e. up to 7 to 10 times of the charges she paid for dry-cleaning the said article as per clause 5 of the terms and conditions of their store but the complainant threatened to drag in unnecessary litigation.
On merits, OP1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. OP1 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on Ex. C1 copy of bill dated 04.12.2021 of Rs.290/-, Ex. C2 is the copy of screenshot of invoice of Rs.9999/-, Ex. C3 to Ex. C6 are the photograph and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, Sh. Sourav Bansal, Partner of OP1 tendered his affidavit Ex. RA along with document Ex. R1 is the photograph of coat and closed the evidence.
5. None has been appearing on behalf of OP1 since 09.09.2023. As such, we have heard the arguments of complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement along with affidavits and documents produced on record by the both parties.
6. Admittedly, the complainant availed the services of the OPs by handing over the coat for dry cleaning on 04.12.2021 for consideration of Rs.290/- vide receipt Ex. C1. The complainant purchased the said coat for her husband from Louis Phillippe Store on 10.12.2019 for Rs.9999/- vide receipt Ex. C2. On 04.12.2021, the dry cleaned coat was delivered at the doorsteps of the complainant. When checked, the complainant noticed that it has shrunk and the colour of the coat has also faded. More, the inner fabric of the coat after dry-cleaning became much longer than the outer fabric. Due to said reason, the coat did not fit in size to husband of the complainant. The complainant raised a complaint with OP2 who further intimated OP1 regarding the said complaint. Firstly OP1 denied his fault by making lame excuses alleging that the coat is made of 100 percent wool due to which the article got shrunk. Even the OPs failed to do needful even second time after dry-cleaning the coat, the defect remains the same. As a result of shrinkage, the size of the coat got much smaller as it was earlier of XL size at the time of its purchase. The OPs failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and was deficient in rendering proper care and caution to the entrusted article. The complainant has also placed on record photographs Ex. C3 to Ex. C5 before and after the dry-cleaning of the said article from the OPs which substantiate the version of the complainant. It is the primary duty of the service provider to render proper care and not to take negligent while performing their duties which in the present case the OPs have failed to do so which has caused loss to the complainant. Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes as under:-
“2(11) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-
- any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and
- deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.”
7. On the other hand, the OPs have denied any deficiency on their part rather they restrict their liability by relying upon clause 5 of the terms and conditions of their store, which is reproduced as under:-
“We exercise utmost care in cleaning and processing garments entrusted to us and use such processes which, in our opinion, are best suited to the nature and conditions each individual garment. Nevertheless, we cannot assume responsibility for inherent weaknesses or defects in materials (such as sun fading on curtains) which may result in tears or the development of small holes in fabric that are not readily apparent prior to processing. In dry-cleaning and laundering we cannot guarantee against color loss, color bleeding, embroidery color beads, buttons, pasting damages or any kind of wear and tear and shrinkages, or against damage to weak & tender fabrics. Our liability with respect to any damaged caused by us shall not exceed seven (7) to ten (10) times our charge for cleaning that garment regardless of brand and condition with an upper limit of rupees 1500. That compensation can only be redeemed as free service from mycleaners.in.”
However, these terms and conditions are not printed on the copy of bill dated 04.12.2021 Ex. C1 now the complainant was made aware of such terms and conditions before rendering their services. It is the primary duty of the service provider to inform the terms and conditions to the person who avails their service. Even in the present case, the OPs have failed to do so which clearly violation the basic consumer right “Right to informed”. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been enacted to protect the interest of the consumer. As per its statement of objects and reason placed before the Parliament the Act has been enacted to promote and protect the rights of consumer as given in Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced as under:-
“Consumer Rights S. 2(9)
(9) “consumer rights” includes-
(i) the right to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property;
(ii) the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
(iii) the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of goods, products or services at competitive prices;
(iv) the right to be heard and to be assured that consumer’s interest will receive due consideration at appropriate fora;
(v) the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and
(vi) the right to consumer awareness.
Thus, OP1 has acted negligently and deficiently while performing its duty in dry-cleaning the coat given by the complainant which has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Keeping in view above stated facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if OP1 is directed to pay Rs.7500/- being the depreciated value of the coat and to refund the charges of dry-cleaning of Rs.290/- to the complainant. OP1 is also burdened with composite cost of Rs.5,000/-.
8. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OP1 to pay Rs.7500/- being the depreciated value of the coat and to refund the charges of dry-cleaning of Rs.290/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. OP1 shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
9. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Sanjeev Batra) Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:04.04.2024.
Gobind Ram.
