DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA.

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 339 of 2022

 

Mr. Prantik Deb,

R/O. Bhati Abhay Nagar,

Cantonment Road, Agartala, Tripura,

P.S.-Tripura West, P.O.-Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala…..................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

 

1. Tumble Dry

Having registered office at:

Cardinal Care LLP,

Rd. Number-4, Near Sankar Chowmuhani,

P.S.-West Tripura, P.O.-Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura................................................................................. Opposite Party.

 

 

  __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : In-person.

 

For the O.P. : None appeared – Ex-parte. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 28 /12/2022.

 

J U D G M E N T

          One Sri Prantik Deb, filed this instant case U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the Act of the O.P. namely Tumble Dry.  

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant  given for dry cleaning of his costly leather jacket and for that he paid Rs.500/- as servicing charge vide Invoice No.T4306, dated 17/12/2021. Before given the jacket for servicing it was in very good condition and the O.P. assured the Complainant that after servicing also the condition of the jacket will be in good condition but the Complainant shocked to see that the jacket was completely damaged and torn and not even in usable condition when the O.P. deliver the jacket after dry cleaning. The matter was reported to the O.P. and the Complainant also requested to the O.P. to pay Rs.10,000/- for price of the jacket and Rs.15,000/- as a compensation for mental harassment and deficiency in service etc. But the O.P. completely refused to do so and neglected and requested the Complainant and for that the Complainant filed this instant case. For the negligent and deficient act of the O.P., the Complainant served one Advocate notice upon the O.P. on 27/01/2022. The O.P. given reply of that notice received from the Complainant on 04/03/2022. The Complainant served another notice to the O.P. on 29/03/2022. Even after servicing both notice the O.P. did not provide any compensation for harassment etc. and cost of the jacket and for that the Complainant filed this instant case for deficiency of service by the O.P.  

Hence, Complainant seeks for relief of Rs.10,000/- for the cost of his leather jacket, Rs.15,000/- for deficiency of service, mental harassment and agony etc. caused by the O.P. and litigation cost. 

On admission of the complaint notice was issued upon the O.P. but inspite of receiving notice O.P. did not turn up and consequently the case was proceeded ex-parte against O.P. vide order dated 22/07/2022. 

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 06 documents comprising 15 sheets under a Firisti dated 08/06/2022 in support of his case. The documents are namely Photo Copy of Adhaar Card of the Complainant, Legal notice from Complainant, Reply notice from Opponent, Reply notice from Complainant, GST Invoice from Tumble Dry & Picture of Damage product etc.  On identification the  documents are marked as Exhibit-I series.

4.    Complainant produced the statement of his affidavit-in-chief and he admitted what was stated in the complaint petition as such no repetition is required.     

5. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    Based on the contentions raised by the Complainant in the pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the following points cropped up for determination:

    (I) Whether the O.P. has committed any deficiency of service towards the Complainant ?

      (II).Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/relief as prayed for?

      (III).  Quantum of compensation entitled by the Complainant ?                   

6.  ARGUMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT:-

Since it is an ex-parte proceeding, we only heard Mr. Prantik Deb of the Complainant.  Complainant, Mr. Deb submitted that the Complainant  given his costly leather jacket for dry cleaning and for that he paid Rs.500/- as service charge vide Invoice No.T4306, dated 17/12/2021. Before given the jacket for servicing, it was in a very good condition and the O.P. assured the Complainant that after servicing also the condition of the jacket will be in good condition but the Complainant shocked to see that the jacket was completely damaged and torn and not even in usable condition when the O.P. deliver the jacket after dry cleaning. The said matter was reported to the O.P. and the Complainant also requested to the O.P. to pay Rs.10,000/- for price of the jacket as the jacket was damaged after dry clean and Rs.15,000/- as a compensation for mental harassment and deficiency in service etc. But the O.P. here in above completely refused to do so and neglected and requested the Complainant and for that, the Complainant filed this instant case. The Complainant served one Advocate notice upon the O.P. on 27/01/2022 claiming the cost of the jacket Rs.10,000/- and also Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment & agony suffered by Mr. Deb. The O.P. given reply of that notice which was received by the Complainant on 04/03/2022 and where -from we find that in Para-4 of that reply it was written that in the tax invoice which was issued in favour of the Complainant it was clearly written that the terms and conditions is that the Complainant will get 10 times of the order value of the item as compensation if the item caused damage / loss. The Complainant served another notice to the O.P. on 29/03/2022. After servicing both notice the O.P. did not provide any relief / compensation for  mental harassment etc. and cost of jacket, and for that the Complainant filed this instant case for deficiency of service by the O.P. Complainant further submitted that necessary documents are produced and it is marked as Exhibit-I series. Complainant, Mr. Deb although served two notices upon the O.P. but inspite of that the O.P. did not provide any relief to the Complainant. Hence, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied Complainant filed this instant case and sought for various reliefs. 

7. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

Since it is an ex-parte proceeding, we have to see whether the Complainant has been able to prove his case by way of adducing sufficient evidence. 

We have carefully gone through the pleadings, evidence filed by the Complainant  as well as oral argument by the Complainant. For the sake of convenience all the points taken up together for decisions. It is an admitted fact that Complainant given his leather jacket for dry cleaning to the O.P. namely Tumble Dry on 17/12/2021. The Complainant paid Rs.500/- as dry cleaning charges to the O.P. and for that O.P. issued one invoice vide No.T4306. We find from that invoice one terms and conditions to the effect that if the item was caused damage / loss then the Mr. Prantik Deb, Complainant hearing will get 10 times ordered value of the item. Mr. Deb went to the Office of the Tumble Dry to take delivery of his leather jacket he find that the conditions his jacket was completely damaged & torn and not even in usable condition. By seeking conditions of his jacket Mr. Deb got shocked and reported the said matter to the O.P. Mr. Deb asked for compensation and cost of his jacket from the O.P. but all his efforts were gone in vain. Mr. Deb repeatedly request for compensation etc. to the O.P. but he got no relief from their end. After that Mr. Deb served one notice upon the O.P. and he also got a reply of his notice from the side of the O.P. Later on Complainant also served another notice to the O.P. but he got no relief from the O.P. Having no other alternative, he raised his voice and knocked the door of the District Consumer Commission for his grievances against the O.P.    

8. The Complainant given his leather jacket to the O.P. for dry cleaning for a service charge of Rs.500/- and when it was given to the O.P. in a good condition. In Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in Section 2 sub-section 34 – we find definition of “Product Liability” means the responsibility of a product manufacture or product seller, of any product or service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective product manufactured or sold or by deficiency in services relating thereto. From the above definition it is clear that the Complainant when given his leather jacket to the O.P. it was in good condition and it is the responsibility of the O.P. to provide proper service without causing any harm to the product given to the O.P. for servicing. In the present case referred above we find that the O.P. caused harm to the item given to him for servicing which can be  termed as causing deficiency in service relating to the item of leather jacket and for that O.P. did not provide any relief and Compensation to the Complainant.  It is pertinent to mention here that as per terms and conditions which was reflected in the invoice submitted by the Complainant is that the quantum of compensation should not be more than that of 10 times of Rs.500/- (which is the service charge of the item) i.e. Rs.500 x 10 =Rs.5,000/-. 

  On appreciation of the Complainant's evidence it was crystal clear that the Complainant able to prove his complaint as such the issue No.1 goes in favour of the Complainant to the effect that O.P. caused deficiency in service as such the Complainant is entitled to get compensation. Now the question is that what will be the quantum of compensation?  

9.        Now, we are of the considered opinion that the O.P. will make a payment to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/- as compensation, Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment and mental agony and Rs.3,000/- for litigation cost. In total Rs.13,000/- within a period of 2 months from the date of this judgment, failing which the entire amount will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full.

Office is directed to supply a certified copy of the judgment to the Complainant free of cost and Complainant is directed to send a certified copy of the judgment to the address of the O.P. by registered post for  information and compliance within 07 days after receiving the certified copy of the judgment. 

Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.