DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.1221/2007
Mrs. Usha Malik
B-502, New Friends Colony
New Delhi
At present:
2600 Antwerpen
Jos Ratinckxstraat
Belgium ….Complainant
Versus
Tiger Systems India Pvt. Ltd.
F-213/C, 1st Floor, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi-110030 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 26.11.07 Date of Order : 09.08.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that she had purchased the designer’s cloth from reputed designers like Lehenga from Ritu Kumar, Brown Kameez set from Ugaan, Blouse with Saree from Ugaan, Red Kameez Set from Ugaan, Purple sameez set from Anju Modi, Kurta from Shantanu & Nikhil and Blouse and Saree from C.T.C. Plaza for her family members in connection with her daughter’s marriage. After the marriage, the aforesaid valuable designers garments were given for dry cleaning to the OP vide invoice No. 3919 dated 24.11.2005 and the same were to be delivered in a perfect condition on 26.11.2005. However, on 24.11.2005 the representative of OP Miss Mona Sharma and one Mr. Gupta informed her that some of the garments were wholly or substantially damaged/destroyed due to fire in their unit. OP had accepted that the garments were either totally destroyed or damaged and same were unusable and they asked the Complainant to fill up compensation claim form. She filled the actual price of the garments damaged in the fire and handed over the same to the representative of the OP on 25.11.05. The representative of the OP assured her that the amount claimed in the claim form will be given to her within a period of 2 days. She was surprised to receive a letter dated 02.12.05 from the OP wherein it was informed that the claim of the Complainant was under process and will be settled within 30 days from 25.11.05 and also informed that the settlement can either be in terms of amount or replacement of the damaged garments with a new one. She informed the OP that the prices submitted by her were the actual costs of the garments as the clothes were purchased from the designer store in the month October, 2005. She sent a legal notice on 10.12.05 for settlement of the claim for an amount of Rs.1,52,000/-. In response to the legal notice, OP sent a cheque of Rs.5085/- (10 times of the service charges) vide cheque No.531001 dated 26.12.05 towards full and final settlement. She returned the above said cheque to the OP and reiterated her claim mentioned in the notice dated 10.12.05 as she had not claimed any excess amount in the claim and she had claimed the actual cost of the designer clothes. The Complainant has stated that while accepting the garments for dry cleaning the OP had not informed that she had to disclose the cost of the garments and produce the invoice; rather the OP vide letter dated 02.12.05 informed her that the claim could either be in terms of amount or replacement of the damaged garments. She had not only informed the brand name, value, date of purchase but also provided certain voucher, invoices etc. to the OP. Hence, she is entitled to the entire cost of the merchandise from the OP on account of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to compensate a sum of Rs 1,52,000/- towards the actual cost of the merchandise damaged in the fire and Rs.5 lacs on account of harassment, pain, suffering and inconvenience caused to the Complainant alognwith 18% interest from the date of filing of the claim with OP till its realization.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- to the Complainant as cost of litigation.
OP in the written statement has stated that the Complainant had given some clothes for cleaning vide invoice No. 3919 on 24.11.05 which was assured to be delivered on 26.11.05 but it is denied that the said garments were the same as was claimed by the Complainant to be the designer clothes from the reputed designers like Lehenga from Ritu Kumar, Brown Kameez set from Ugaan, Blouse with Saree from Ugaan, Red Kameez Set from Ugaan, Purple sameez from Anju Modi, Kurta from Shantanu & Nikhil and Blouse and Saree from C.T.C. Plaza. None of the garments given for dry cleaning were either from dress designer because as per condition mentioned on the reverse of the invoice, customer has to declare the details of costly garments so that extra precaution can be taken and there was no mark of the designer on the clothes as claimed. These garments were old and used for sufficiently long time. It is also denied that the said garments were purchased in connection of marriage of her daughter and after such marriage garments were given for dry cleaning. During the course of processing on 25.11.05 one of the dry cleaning units caught fire leading damages to the several clothes of different customers. In the said incident only six pieces of garments were damaged out of 38 clothes given by the complainant and the matter was informed to the Complainant. Rest of the garments were delivered to the Complainant on 26.11.05. OP has stated that the Complainant while lodging claim for compensation made claim for those garments which were not at all damaged in the incident. Only 6 pieces of clothes were damaged and rest of 32 pieces of out of 38 pieces were delivered to the Complainant on 26.11.05 like only dupatta was burnt but she claimed for lehanga set for Rs.38,000/, only blouse was damaged but she claimed for blouse with saree for Rs.44,000/-. Similarly, kameez was burnt but she has claimed for full set of salvar kameez and dupatta. Therefore, the Complainant had not claimed for the garments as per the actual price of the garments damaged. They asked the Complainant to give documentary support of the garments. As per clause 5 of the invoice dated 24.11.05 which was a contract of the service, in case of any damage or loss to the garments, a maximum liability of 10 times of the tariff charged will be compensated. Clause 6 of the said contract says that if the cost of the garments is more than Rs.3000/-, customer is required to inform by way of remarks while giving the garments for cleaning; if the Complainant had declared the high value garments, he/she had to pay extra cleaning charges and in that case her claim of higher value could have been considered. Only 6 pieces of garments were partially damaged, the process of charges of which were for Rs.508.50/-. They sent a cheque of Rs.5085/- equal to 10% of washing charges to the Complainant in full and final settlement of the claim. Therefore, no question for any harassment, pain and suffering and inconvenience caused to the Complainant arises. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP and denied that the said garments were old and used for sufficiently long time. These garments were given to the OP for dry cleaning which were designer clothes and purchased vide receipt No.4441 dated 17.11.05 and memo No.GFO14068 dated 02.11.05 of Ugaan and CTC plaza and they were given to the OP. The OP is liable to indemnify the cost of the entire garments because the same have become unusable on account of the damage of the part of the said clothes to wear alone and if any one of the part of the garments is destroyed, in that eventuality the entire set becomes unusable.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Manoj Mishra, Assistant Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had given clothes for dry cleaning to the OP on 24.11.05 and the same were to be delivered on 26.11.05 (Copy Ex. CW-1/2). On 25.11.05 one of the plants of the OP caught fire and six of the clothes of the complainant were either totally destroyed or damaged and became in unusable condition. The OP vide letter dated 02.12.05 informed the Complainant that the claim settlement could be either in terms of amount or replacement of the damaged garments with the new ones and requested her to file the purchase date of the damaged garments, brand name, value and, if possible, the purchase receipts of the damaged goods (copy Ex. CW-1/5). The Complainant filed the compensation claim form and submitted the details of the goods as desired by the OP (copy Ex. CW-1/4). The OP vide letter dated 26.12.05 informed the Complainant that six garments were burnt away and they were ready to make the payment 10 times of the service charges which comes to Rs.5085/- and sent a cheque to the Complainant for Rs.5085/- (Copy Ex. CW-1/7).
In invoice memo CW-1/2, the terms and conditions were not mentioned. Conditions have been mentioned in the compensation claim form (copy Ex. CW1/4) wherein it is stated that in case of any damage or loss of the garments a maximum liability of 10% times of the tariff charged will be compensated. OP has not filed copy of the booking voucher or of any other document to even show that any such agreement was entered into between the parties or the complainant’s signature had been obtained on it.
It is evident from the records that no agreement/contract was signed between the parties as no where the consumer signature was found in the receipt issued by the OP. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP as the Complainant had given 38 clothes for dry cleaning and 6 clothes were damaged. Therefore, the garments became unusable on account of the damage of the part of the set of the clothes to wear alone. If any one of the part of the said clothes destroyed, in that event the entire set had became unusable. Copy of bills filed by the complainant are EX. CW1/1 (colly) which are for Rs. 39700/- + 15295/- + 33250/-. Third Bill has been issued by “finesse International” in the name of Rani Malik. The name of the said designer does not find mention in the complaint. Therefore, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum for damage caused to the clothes of the Complainant and towards mental, pain and agony undergone by the Complainant including cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the date of this order till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 09.08.16
Case No. 1221/07
09.08.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed partly. OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum for damage caused to the clothes of the Complainant and towards mental, pain and agony undergone by the Complainant including cost of litigation. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the date of this order till realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
