Order No. 8.
Date- 25/05/2015.
As per complaint the Complainant Smt. Lipika Saha purchased cloth prices worth of Rs. 11,790/- only in the month of July 2014 for preparing 4 Salwar Kameez for herself and 2 Anarkali Salwar Kurta for her daughter from Bhiwaniwala Saree Museum, Dayaram & Co. and Milan. The complainant went to MaaDurga Tailors Butique for preparing those dresses as per design given by the complainant. The dresses were prepared in defective norms and forms for which on the date of delivery complainant did not accept those dresses. On several occasion, the complainant went to the tailoring shop with a request of preparing those dresses as per their given design, i.e. as prescribed by the complainant.
But the ops expressed their inability to prepare it which had already been prepared. When the ops did not agree to prepare the dresses as per designs of the complainant, she demanded refund price amount of Rs. 11,790/- which was paid for purchasing the clothes. But the ops declined to refund. But waiting after 8 months to get redressal from the op, the complainant was compelled to lodge complaint for redressal and to direct the ops for immediate payment of Rs. 11,790/- i.e. the cost of damaged clothes when ops at the time of preparing the said dresses, damaged it.
Op no.2 by appearing 30.03.2015 and by filing his written version submitted that he is a part-time job holder of M/s. Maa Durga Tailors Buitque and he takes tailoring order from different tailoring shops and supply them after doing his work but he does not know Lipika Saha, Complainant and he finishes all the work as per direction of the shop owner.He is not authorized to take order from the customers. So, all the allegations made by the complainant against him is totally false and fabricated. Complainant provided old sample of dresses to the shop owner for making the new dresses according to that sample. After preparation, the samples, along with new dresses were handed over to the complainant but he received the cloth along with sample from the owner of the shop and did his work properly according to the sample provided to him. Now he is no longer an employee of Maa Durga Tailors and Butique and he was deprived by the shop owner, he left the shop. According to the op no.2 in preparing the clothes, no defect was made by him.
In this case notices were served upon the ops on 09.03.2015. The ops received the notice on 20.03.2015. The postal internet track report shows that both the ops received the notices and op no.2 Vijay Singh appeared on 30.03.2015 and filed written version on the same date. But op no.1 i.e. owner of Maa Durga Tailors Butique did not turn up to take any step. Forum granted chance to op no.1 for filing written version but op no.1 did not appear. During this proceeding op no.2 was present only for one day. As the ops did not take any step and they were absent on repeated calls, the case is fixed for exparte hearing on 04.05.2015. On that date ops were found absent and E-chief was filed by the complainant as because ops were found reluctant to take any step. So, the case is heard finally on 12.05.2015 and accordingly we proceeded for final adjudication.
Decision with reasons
On proper study of the complaint, E-chief of the complainant, written version of op no.2 and materials on record, it is found that complainant bought clothes for preparing salwar, kurta for herself and for her daughter. Complainant went to M/s. Maa Durga Tailors Buitque to get the salwar kurtas prepared. Complainant was not satisfied with the prepared garments. Rather, she alleged that the clothes were not prepared following the order of the complainant. So the dresses are not liked by her. It is the duty of the ops to prepare the clothes according to the choice of the complainant because complainant spent considerable amount for purchasing clothes and an amount of Rs. 2100/- was charged for the work. Op no.1 took a time of almost 15 days for preparing six garments i.e. 4 for herself and 2 for her daughter. But ops failed to satisfy the complainant. The garments were not prepared according to the design prescribed by the complainant. The complainant had an expectation that she and her daughter would wear those garments during Puja. When she came to know that the dresses were not prepared accordingly, she complained to the ops and demanded for adequate preparation of the kurtas as per design supplied by her. But nothing of that sort was done by the ops.
In fact in this case op no.1 Sushila Verma, owner of M/s. Maa Durga Tailors Buitque (Tailoring Shop) has not appeared though summons were served both Sushila Verma and Vijay Singh. Admitted position is that op no.2 submitted that he works under op no.1-s tailoring shop as part time dress maker and Sushila Verma is the owner of the tailoring shop.
Op no.2 is not authorized to take any work from the customers but op no.1 used to take orders from different customers and allotted different tailors for tailoring work. Everything was taken by the owner of the shop, Maa Durga Tailors Buitque.
Considering the defence of the case, it is evident that complainant has failed to produce any material to prove that op no.2 took orders from the complainant and he made dresses as per design and measurement prescribed by the complainant and there is no such material to prove by the complainant that there is any relationship between complainant and op no.2 as consumer and service provider. Moreover, complainant admitted that complainant went to the shop room of Maa Durga Tailors Boutique and receipt was issued by Maa Durga Tailors Boutique on 08.07.2014 and from their identity card it is found that Sushila Verma and Puja Verma are the owners of the tailoring shop. Then it is clear that relationship between complainant and op no.1 is well proved as consumer and service provider.
For the above reasons and findings, we are convinced to hold that complainant is not a consumer of op no.2. So the complaint shall be dismissed against op no.2. When it is already proved from the complainant-s own document that Maa Durga Tailors Boutique took order for stitching the dresses of the complainant, then owners of Maa Durga Tailors Boutique are the service provider and entire allegation is made against op no.1 for not preparing the dresses as per orders given by the complainant for preparing those dresses and admitted position is that for preparing those dresses, materials were supplied by the complainant to the owner of Maa Durga Tailors Buitque. But on behalf of Maa Durga Tailors Boutique, op no.1 did not appear to contest and has not also challenged the allegation of the complainant. The dresses are in the custody of op no.1. In the above situation, relying upon the documents and unchallenged testimony of the complainant and the receipt which invariably proves that the dresses as per design of the complainant is not prepared and for which complainant was dissatisfied. That fact is not denied by op no.1 though op no.1 got chance to defend which perforce this Forum to come to a conclusion that op no.1 invariably prepared the dresses not as per design and measurement as given by the complainant and invariably for which it can safely be said that op did not discharge her service and failed to render satisfactory service by not supplying the dresses as per directions and measurement prescribed by the complainant. So, for that reason complainant-s cost of purchasing dress materials has become a completely loss for preparing such defective dresses. But complainant has never expected it from op no.1 which is negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of op no.1 for which complainant suffered a lot no doubt when Rs.11,790/- was the price of the cloth. It is settled principle of law that tailors must have to supply dresses as per design supplied by the complainant. But in the present case on relying upon the unchallenged testimony of the complainant, we are convinced to hold that op no.1 damaged the clothes for which complainant has suffered financially and mentally and her desire to wear a be-fitting dress is/was nipped in the bud.
In the light of the above observation we are inclined to hold that op no.1-s negligent and deficient manner of service is responsible for the loss of the complainant.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the case be and the same is allowed exparte with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- against op no.1 and dismissed against op no.2.
Op no.1 is directed to refund Rs. 11,790/-, the cost of Salwar Kurtas. Op no.1 is liable to pay the decretal amount within one month from the date of this order, failing which penal charges at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree. If the penal charges are collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
If op no. 1is found unwilling to comply the order, in that case, penal proceeding shall be started against the op no.1 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
