Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/92

Kum Sujaya Bhattacharya. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tant & silk Polish, Traders Assembly Abarani. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A.L.Saha, Mr. K.Nandi

13 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  92 of 2014

         Smt. Sujaya Bhattacharya,
         D/O- Late Shibendu Bhattacharya,
         Banamalipur,
          Jora Pukur(South),
         Agartala, Tripura West.        ...............Complainant.
    

         ______VERSUS______

          Tat & Silk Polish,
         Traders Assembly Abarani,
         Hawkers Corner, 1st Floor, Room No. 86,
         Agartala, Tripura West.        ...............Opposite Party.
        
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant     : Sri Amrit Lal Saha,
                        Sri Kajal Nandi and
                         Sri Abheek Saha,
                         Advocates.            
                                              
For the O.Ps             : Sri Prabal Kr. Ghosh and
                       Sri Rakesh Ch. Deb,
                       Advocates. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  13.11.15

J U D G M E N T

            This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Smt. Sujaya Bhattacharya, D/O- Lt. Shibendu Bhattacharya of Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.P., Tat & Silk Polish, Traders Association Abarani, Hawkers Corner, Agartala, West Tripura over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

2.            The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that on 26.02.14 the complainant handed over one Tant saree and one Mekhla to the O.P. for washing. Out of total washing charges of Rs.200/-, she paid Rs.50/- as advance and the date of delivery of the articles was 20.04.14. The O.P. issued a cash memo bearing No- 1279 dated 26.02.14 as a token of receipt of the articles and money as advance. On 21.04.14 she visited the shop of the O.P. for taking delivery of the articles when it was found that the colour & texture of the Mekhla had been faded away. Being dissatisfied, she took delivery of the tant saree only. The O.P. assured her that the colour of the Mekhla would be restored to its original position and requested her to wait for some days. She visited the shop of the O.P. on a number of occasions but the O.P. failed to restore the colour of the Mekhla to its original position. Finding no other alternative, on 16.09.14 she issued a notice to the O.P. demanding adequate compensation. In response to the notice, the O.P. took a false plea that on 26.08.14 she took back the Mekhla making payment of the balance amount of Rs.150/- on being fully satisfied though the Mekhla in question is still lying with him. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.P. constituted negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The complaint was contested by the O.P. by filing written objection stating, interalia, that on 21.04.14 the complainant visited his shop and took delivery of the tant saree. She did not take delivery of the Mekhla as she was then not having sufficient money with her. After 4 months on 26.08.14  she again visited his shop and took back the Mekhla making payment of the balance amount of Rs.150/- on being fully satisfied as to its colour and texture. The O.P. denies having negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant in any manner whatsoever.

4.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined herself as P.W.1 and another Sri Biswendu Bhattacharya, the brother of the complainant, as P.W.2 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:-
    Exhibit 1- copy of money receipt dated 26.02.14, 
    Exhibit 2- Demand notice dated 16.09.14,  
    Exhibit 3- Reply to the demand notice dated 27.09.14.
        
5.        On the other hand, one Sri Gopal Pal, the proprietor of the O.P. firm, has examined himself as O.P.W. 1 and another one Sri Abhijit Pal, the employee of the O.P. firm as O.P.W.2.
        No. documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the O.P.         

Findings:
6.        The point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.P. was negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

7.        We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously.

8.        There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant handed over one Tant saree and one Mekhla to the O.P., who used to run a dry cleaning shop, on 26.02.14 for washing and out of total washing charges of Rs.200/- she paid Rs.50/- as advance. The date of delivery of the articles was 20.04.14. On 21.04.14, out of 2 articles, she took delivery of tant saree only.

9.        It is the allegation of the complainant that she declined to receive back the Mekhla on 21.04.14 as its colour and texture were spoiled and she left the Mekhla with the O.P. on his assurance that its original colour and texture would be restored to its original position.        
        The O.P. controverted the aforesaid plea of the complainant saying that on 21.04.14 the complainant failed to take delivery of the Mekhla as she was not having sufficient money with her. Instead, she only took delivery of the tant saree with a promise to take delivery of the remaining article shortly.
10.            It is the assertion of the complainant that she visited the shop of the O.P. on a number of occasions but he failed to deliver the Mekhla as he could not restore its original colour and texture as promised.
            The O.P. has denied the above assertion of the complainant having said that on 26.08.14 the complainant visited his shop and took back the Mekhla on payment of balance amount of Rs.150/-. It is well settled that a person, who asserts something, the burden of duty lies on him to prove such assertion. 
11.            In the complaint, nowhere it is stated by the complainant that she visited the shop of the O.P. on 26.08.14 to take delivery of the Mekhla. On perusal of the photocopy of the money receipt dated 26.02.14(Exhibit-1) it is found that there are two entries in the money receipt- one as 'IP Mekhla due' with date on 21.04.14 and another as 'paid' with date on 26.08.14. It is an admitted fact that on 21.04.14 the complainant took delivery of tant saree from the O.P. Naturally a question arises for what purpose the complainant paid on 26.08.14. Admittedly, the Exhibit-1 money receipt was all along in the custody of the complainant. During cross-examination, the complainant also admitted that the word 'paid' on 26.08.14 over Exhibit-1 was written by the owner of the shop himself. If the complainant did not visit the shop of the O.P. on 26.08.14, as testified by her, then how such entry was made in Exhibit-1 by the O.P. We have no doubt in our mind that the complainant visited the shop of the O.P. on 26.08.14 and paid certain amount to the O.P.  On our query, the learned counsel for the complainant also failed to explain this anomalous position.
12.            It is not the case of the complainant that the O.P. made entry in exhibit-1 as 'paid' with date on 26.08.14 by adopting unfair means. It is not understandable to us if the O.P. did not return the Mekhla to the complainant why should she paid on 26.08.14. The complainant has failed to dispel the doubt from our mind.

13.            For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to make out the case that the O.P. adopted unfair trade practice and thus was deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

14.            In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is dismissed on contest being devoid of merit. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.  

15.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.