Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

220/2014

Devadas, S/o.Mr.E.N.Padmanaban - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s.Diva(A Unit of HISTYLE) - Opp.Party(s)

Madhu Prakash

26 Nov 2021

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 18.11.2014

                                                                    Date of disposal            : 26.11.2021

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.      : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.220/2014

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 26^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                                

Mr.Devadas,

S/o Mr.E.N.Padmanabhan,

Xandu, 1059, 10^th Street,

Poompuhar Nagar,

Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

                                                                                           .. Complainant.                                                                     ..Vs..

 

 

1.The Manager,

M/s. Diva, (A UNIT OF Hi Style),

1652g, 2^nd Avenue,

Near Blue Star Bus Stop,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040. 

 

2. Mr.Kiran,

M/s. Diva (A UNIT OF Hi Style),

2B/1,2B/2, South Phase,

6^th Street, 3^rd Main Road,

Ambathur Industrial Estate,

Chennai – 600 058.

 

                                                                                        ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : Madhu Prakash and another

Counsel for the opposite parties           : Party in Person

 

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays  to replace the dress material and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the unfair trade practice of the opposite party against the complainant  and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- cost for this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is the customer of Hi-Style for past  12 year. The complainant visited the 1^st opposite party showroom at Anna Nagar on 31.01.2014 purchased dress materials worth of Rs.16,469/-  bearing bill No.15700016106. The complainant purchased totally seven items out of the seven items one was a silk churidhar worth of Rs.6845/-. The 1^st opposite party also promised at the time of purchase that if any defect in the material the material will be replaced immediately, believing the 1^st opposite party word the complainant purchased the material from  the 1^st opposite party. The complainant in the month of April the complainant washed the material before using it to shock and surprise for the complainant the dress material got damaged immediately after the wash. The complainant submits that it was a costly material and how come the material gets damaged in the first wash itself. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party immediately on 23^rd April 2014 and sent the 1^st opposite party the damaged materials and the 1^st opposite party accepted it and also promised that the issue will be sorted as soon as possible.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party again on 25^th July 2014 the 1^st opposite party requested the complainant for a week time but there was no response from the 1^st opposite party side. The complainant sent a mail on 12^th August 2014 to Mr.Kiran/Ms.Sukanya stating no steps have been taken in his issue for past six months. The opposite parties are dragging the complainant from pillar to post. The opposite parties failed to keep the trust of their customer hence both the opposite parties in the above said act is punishable in the nature of law.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The allegations made by the complainant are frivolous and false made with an intention in intimiate and harass business people in order to make unlawful gains. The said silk churidhar item was sold along with the other it as per bill dated 31.01.2014. Even at the time of purchase by the complainant it is was specifically instructed clearly and categorically that the said churidhar should be dry cleaned only and should not be washed by Washing Machine. The cloth instructions TAG of the company along with the said churidhar clearly indicates and instructs that the said item should not be washed by washing machine and only dry clean is allowed. These instructions were also given by the sales person at the time of purchase by the complainant. Inspite of the same and totally in contradiction to the said  specific instructions, the complainant has straightway immediately after purchase put the said churidhar in the washing machine, which is total gross negligence on the part of the complainant. The complainant, for the first time made a claim by letter dated 23.04.2014. It is most significant to note that in the said letter itself the complainant has himself very clearly and categorically admitted that the said churidhar was wrongly and unknowingly put in the washer by the maid and because of that it was damaged. Further, in the said letter itself the complainant has admitted that there is absolutely no mistake on the part of these opposite parties and that the mistake is purely from the side of the complainant. In the present case it is specifically mentioned in the bill itself that there is no exchange for this items. Moreover, even otherwise the alleged claim was made nearly three months after the date of purchase. The complainant was clearly informed that since the mistake and negligence  was on the part of the complainant there is no question of any refund or exchange of any kind and the said Mr.Sudhakar also clearly informed the complainant about the same. Further, immediately after issuing the alleged letter dated 27.10.2014 the complainant has hurriedly filed the above complaint even before the opposite parties could issue the reply. The above complaint is unsustainable and frivolous and liable to be dismissed and rejected.  

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of dress materials?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost?
4. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled?

4. POINT NO :1 to 3

The complainant allegedthat he purchased a silk churidhar worth Rs.6,845/- from the opposite parties show room on 31.01.2014., that in the month of April the complainant washed the material and found the dress material got damaged immediately after the first wash, that complainant approached opposite parties on 23.04.2014, on 25.07.2014 and again on 05.08.2014. But the opposite parties failed to sort-out the issue and there is no response from the opposite parties, that the opposite party failed to keep the trust of their customer and committed unfair trade practice.

05. The opposite parties contended  that the complainant purchased the Silk churidhar on 31.01.2014 and at the time of purchase it was specifically inspected to the complainant  that the said churidhar to be dry cleaned and should not be washed by washing machine, that the cloth instruction TAG of the company also indicates  that the said item should not be washed by washing machine and only dry clean is allowed, that the inspite of the same the complainant after purchased  put the said churidhar in washing machine which is total gross negligence that in the present case the specifically mentioned in the bill  there is no exchange for this item therefore this complaint is not maintainable.

          06. The complainant purchased seven dress material worth Rs.16,469/- on 31.01.2014  from the opposite parties show room at Anna Nagar. Out of seven items one of the item is silk churidhar worth Rs.6,845/- Ex.A1 is the copy of Bill issued by the opposite parties. The opposite parties also admitted the purchase of churidhar from the opposite parties on 31.01.2014. The 1^st opposite party is the manager of M/s.Diva Anna Nagar Branch, and 2^nd opposite party one Kiran working in M/s in Diva Ambathur Instrial Estate. Both the opposite partied filed their written version along with six documents.

07. The complainant the month of April 2014 washed the Silk churidhar and found dress material got damaged. Ex.A2 is the copy of the letter dated 23.04.2014written by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party. In the letter the complainant stated as follows. “ 1purchased a Silk Churidar@ Rs.6,845/- = 31.01.2014 for my sons wedding. It was wrongly unknowingly put in washer by our maid because of it was damaged. I complete agree that its not your mistake and purely mistake fom the customers side. I am sending this material to you to have a look, if this can happen to a churdar costing Rs.6,845/-. Taking into consideration that I would have so far purchasematerial from Hi-Style & Diva for close to Rs.3 lakhs in the past, hope you will do something good to a customer like me”. The copy of the Ex.A2 is marked as Ex.B5 on the side of opposite parties. Hence Ex.A2 and Ex.B5 are copies of same document. The complainant in his letter clearly admitted his mistake by saying that his servant wrongly put the Silk churidharin the washing machine and it was damaged.

08. The opposite parties marked lable attached with thechuridhar top as Ex.B3 & Ex.B4 in Ex.B3 it is written as follows “Made in India 100% silk dry clean only”, Ex.B4 TAG also written as follows “Dry Clean only”. Further thesales man of the opposite parties at the time of purchase instructed the complainantthat the silk churidhar should not be washed by washing machine, dry clean only allowed. But the complainant without following instructions and without noticing the instruction mentioned in the TAG of the sudidhar put the silk sudidhar in the washing machineand thereby the silk churidhar damaged. The damage is due to the negligent of the complainant. The opposite partiesare in no way responsible forthe damage occurs to the silk churidhar.

          09. The complainant want  to the opposite party’s show room on 23.04.2014  after three months  from the date of purchase of the churidhar,  for exchange. The opposite parties in the bill clearly mentioned no exchange on sale item. Further the silk churidhar was damaged due to the negligent act of the complainant and therefore the opposite parties have not liable to exchange the damaged churidhar and there is no question of refund of amount. Under the circumstances there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and complainant is not entitled for replacement of dress materials, compensation and cost.

 

 

10.POINT NO: 4

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.    

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 26^th day of November 2021.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 31.01.2014                   Receipt for the purchase  Photo copy

 

Ex.A2 dated 23.03.2014          Letter to opposite party regarding the return of goods  Photo copy

 

Ex.A3 dated 25.04.2014          Courier bill           Photo copy

 

Ex.A4 dated 02.09.2014          Mail Replies  Photo copy

 

Ex.A5 dated 27.10.2014          Notice caused to the opposite party  photo copy

 

Ex.A6 dated 27.10.2014          Receipt caused for both the legal notice photo copy

 

Ex.A7 dated 28.10.2014          Acknowledgement card for receiving the notice by both the opposite party   photo copy

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B2 dated 31.01.2014                   Sale Bill – Bill T5/00016106

 

Ex.B2 dated 31.01.2014                   Inventory sale details Bill No.T5/00016106

 

Ex.B3 dated 31.01.2014          Salwar Kameez inside label scan (Mentioned Dry clean – specification)

 

Ex.B4 dated 31.01.2014          Diva price TAG “Mentioned Dry Clean Only”

 

Ex.B5 dated 23.04.2014          Customer letter copy 23.04.2014 (Acceptance letter of hand wash)

 

Ex.B6 dated 23.04.2014          Garments received condition from customer through courier-no-MAA 157399381 - Professional

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT