Date of Filing:-23/08/2015
Order No. -14 Dt.- 10 /03/2016
Shri Asoke Kumar Das,President
F I N A L O R D E R
Complainant’s case in short is that she she gave one black coat suit(3 pieces)made by Raymond Fabric and a ladies shawal to STYLO DRY CLEANERS(O.P.1) for dry cleaning. The coat suit was in good condition and used only about one year. But at the time of taking delivery of the coat suit on 27/05/2015 from O.P.1 she found that the fabric was heavily damaged. On her query the O.P.1 told her that dry cleaning process might create ‘bubble’ and that the word ‘bubble’ was used by O.P.1 to define the nature of damage. The complainant didn’t receive back the said coat suit and the shawl from O>P.1 due to aforesaid reason i.e. damage of coat suit. She lodged complaint with Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri claiming compensation of Rs.22,000/- against the O.Ps. but not fruitful result came out. Hence, this case.
Both the O.Ps. have contested this case by filing a Written version denting and disputing the claims and contentions of the complainant with prayer for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost. Their specific stand is that they never ever damaged the fabric of the coat suit and that the word bubble was used not to define the nature of damage but the bubble was already present in the material before cleaning and they used every standard procedure for cleaning of the coat suit and that O.P.1 is always ready to deliver the goods but the complainant refused to take delivery of goods and claimed unethical compensation for illegal gain.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the case maintainable ?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the O.P. guilty for deficiency in serviceand /or Unfair Trade Practice i.e. for causing alleged damage of the fabric of the coat suit given to O.P.1 by the complainant for dry cleaning on 27/05/2015?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
Seen and perused the materials on record i.e. the petition of complaint, the Written Version(both are supported by affidavits)., the documents filed by both the parties and the written notes of arguments filed for O.Ps. We have also heard arguments advanced by the complainant herself and the Ld. Lawyer for the O.Ps.
After due consideration of aforesaid and after plain looking of the coat suit (produced by O.Ps. today as per order no.13 dt.26/02/2016) which is the subject matter of this case, we find that this case is well maintainable and that the complainant is a consumer of the O.P.. Now we find that the main allegation of the complainant against the O.Ps. is that they have damaged the fabric of the coat suit(three pieces)given for dry cleaning. The O.Ps. have denied such allegatiobn of the complainant. We find that the complainant has neither produced any report from any fabric expert nor applied before this Forum for examination of the fabric of the coat suit in question by any fabric expert or fabric expert of Raymond Company to prove her allegation of damage of fabric of the coat suit against the O.Ps. . She has given much importance in the statement made by the O.Ps. in the last part of paragraph no.11 of their Written Version to prove her allegation of damage of fabric of coat suit against the O.Ps. wherein the O.Ps. have stated that, “the word bubble was used not to define the nature of damage but the bubble was already present in the materials before cleaning……….” It was argued by the complainant that if there was bubble in the coat suit at the time of her giving the same to O.P.1 for dry cleaning than this matter certainly noted in the bill/receipt issued by the O.P.1 to her. But in the bill/receipt issued to her by O.P.1 there is no such note, so it is clear that there was no bubble in the coat suit when those were given to O.P.1 and bubbles were formed after cleaning of the coat suit and as such O.Ps. are guilty for damage of the fabric of the coat suit. In reply it was argued by the Ld. Lawyer for O.Ps. that bubbles i.e. very small size fabric dots mixed with dust were already present in the coat suit and for this those coat suit were given for dry cleaning and after cleaning of the coat suit by applying standard procedure the bubbles were removed and no damage of the fabric of the coat suit, as alleged by the complainant was done.
On plain looking of the coat suit in question and after due consideration of above arguments of both sides and the materials on record we find that admittedly the complainant could not produce any report of any fabric expert or the report of fabric expert of Raymond Company (As per the complainant the said coat suit was of Raymond Brand) in order to prove her allegation of damage of the fabric of the coat suit in question. It is quite difficult on our part to come to a definite conclusion on the point of damage of fabric of the coat suit on plain looking of the coat-suit in question in absence of expert’s report. Admittedly the coat suit was used about one year and obviously for the purpose of cleaning the coat suit was given to O.P. for dry cleaning wash. In such circumstances we find no substance in the argument advanced by the complainant on O.P.’s statement at the end of paragraph 11 of their W/V. Rather we find much substance in the argument advanced by the side of O.P. on the said point.
In this view of the matter we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove her allegation made against the O.Ps. by sufficient evidence/document. As such we find sufficient reason to hold that the O.ps. are not guilty for deficiency-in-service and or Unfair Trade Practice for damage of the fabric of the coat-suit as alleged by the complainant and accordingly the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
All points are disposed.
In the result the case fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the case /application is dismissed on contest but without cost.
The O.Ps. are directed to return back the coat suit (3 pieces) and the shawl to the complainant immediately on proper receipt.
Let copy of this final order be supplied free of cost forthwith to the parties/ their Ld. Advocates/agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post, in terms of Rule 5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987.
