THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 518 of 2014

Date of Institution : 23.9.2014

Date of Decision : 14.07.2015

Mr. Bikramjit Singh son of S. Kulwant Singh resident of 333, Partap Avenue, Opposite Alpha one Mall, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Talwar Handloom House, 39, The Mall, Amritsar through its Partner/Proprietor

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Vikram Puri,Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh. Neeraj Brahmi,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Bikramjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he visited the opposite party for purchasing superior quality of cloth and the opposite party assured the complainant

-2-

that they are selling superior quality of cloth. On the assurance of the opposite party complainant purchased 25 meter cloth for sofa set vide invoice No. SO 2675 dated 22.11.2013 for a sum of Rs. 37,375/-. After purchasing the said cloth , the complainant got prepared sofa set and spent huge amount on the material and labour for preparing the sofa set. According to the complainant, immediately after preparation of sofa set, the cloth became very rough and tough and various patches have developed on the cloth . The complainant approached the opposite party about the aforesaid position of the cloth and requested them either to replace the said poor quality of cloth or to return the price thereof. But they flatly refused to do so. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to either replace the defective cloth with new one of superior quality or to return its price i.e. Rs. 37375/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 30000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was admitted that complainant purchased furnishing cloth from the opposite party vide invoice No. SO-2675 dated 22.11.2013 for a sum of Rs. 37375/-. It was denied that opposite party assured the complainant that in case of any complaint with respect of to such cloth, they will exchange the same within one year. It was denied that immediately after preparation of sofa set, the cloth became very rough, tough and various patches developed on the cloth, as alleged. It was further denied that

-3-

the cloth of the sofa set does not look fine and does not decorate the sofa set of the complainant. Opposite party also denied that the cloth is not of superior/fine quality. Opposite party further denied that the complainant approached the opposite party and apprised them about the aforesaid position of the cloth or that the opposite party has finally refused either to replace the cloth or to refund the price of the cloth to the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, photographs Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-11.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Talwar Ex.OP1, additiional affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Talwar Ex.OP2.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.

6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased 25 meter cloth for sofa set from the opposite party vide invoice no. SO-2675 dated 22.11.2013 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 37,375/-. Thereafter the complainant got prepared sofa set and spent huge amount on material and labour for preparing sofa set. The complainant

-4-

alleges that after preparation of sofa set with the aforesaid cloth, the said cloth became shabby , various patches developed on the cloth which do not look nice. In this regard complainant produced photographs of the sofa set Ex.C-3 to C-11. All this proves the fact that cloth sold by the opposite party to the complainant vide invoice Ex.C-2 is not of superior/fine quality rather the same is of inferior or poor quality. The assurance given by the opposite party that the cloth is of superior/fine quality proved to be false and the purpose for which the cloth was purchased by the complainant, has not been achieved. The complainant has suffered huge loss in preparing the said sofa by paying labour and other material charges required for preparing the sofa. The complainant approached the opposite party and apprised them about the aforesaid position of the cloth and requested them either to replace the said poor quality cloth or to return the price of the cloth to the complainant. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant rather finally refused to replace the defective cloth with new one or to refund the price thereof to the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant never lodged any complaint with the opposite party regarding the alleged defects in the impugned furnishing cloth. The opposite party admitted that the complainant

-5-

purchased his furnishing cloth from the opposite party vide invoice Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 37,375/-. The opposite party never gave any assurance to the complainant regarding exchange of cloth or return of amount of the cloth, in case the cloth proves to be not of superior quality. The opposite party further denied that the cloth of the sofa set does not look fine and does not decorate the sofa set of the complainant. They also denied that the cloth is not of superior/fine quality. Opposite party further denied that the complainant approached the opposite party and apprised them about the aforesaid position of the cloth or that the opposite party has finally refused either to replace the cloth or to refund the price of the cloth to the complainant. It is submitted that the cloth is not having any defect. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased 25 meter cloth from the opposite party for sofa set vide invoice dated 22.11.2013 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 37,375/- and this fact has been admitted by the opposite party. The complainant used this cloth for the preparation of the sofa set. The said cloth used by the complainant for preparation of his sofa set became very shabby, its colour faded at various places within a span of a few months after preparation of the sofa set, as is evident from the photographs of the sofa set purchased by the complainant Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-11. The complainant has

-6-

stated on oath through his affidavit Ex.C-1 that he approached the opposite party and apprised them about the aforesaid position of the cloth and requested them for replacement of cloth with new one or to refund the price thereof to the complainant. Opposite party has alleged that the complainant never approached the opposite party nor apprised them of the aforesaid position of the cloth. But the opposite party even after the filing of the present complaint did not send any person to the premises of the complainant to get apprised about the position of the cloth of the sofa set, purchased by the complainant and used for the preparation of the aforesaid sofa set, vide invoice Ex.C-2. The complainant purchased this cloth from the opposite party vide invoice Ex.C-2 on 22.11.2013 and he filed the present complaint on 23.9.2013 i.e. within a period of 10 months . It is not expected that such a cloth of superior quality shall became shabby and loose its colour/shade within such a short period of less than one year. All this shows that the opposite party has supplied inferior quality cloth to the complainant which is not upto the mark and as such the opposite party is liable to either replace the said cloth with new one of standard/upto mark quality or to refund the price of the cloth to the complainant. Not only this the complainant has also suffered loss as he used other material as well as incurred labour charges for the preparation of the sofa set with the aforesaid cloth. Resultantly the opposite party is certainly in deficiency of service towards the complainant.

-7-

9. Consequently we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to either replace the defective cloth with new one of same price and of same standard/upto mark quality or to return the price of the cloth to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay compensation Rs. 10000/- as well as litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant . Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

14.7.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member