District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 408/2022.
Date of Institution:03.08.2022.
Date of Order.12.06.2023.
Mohit Sharma son of Shri Jawahar Sharma, resident of House No. 103, Gali No.1, Near Sihi Gate, Bhudatt Colony, Ballabgarh, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Tumbledry, Shop NO. 2350, Sector-7A, Dividing Road, Faridabad – 121006 through his authorized person Mr. Neeraj Kumar.
…Opposite party
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Pankul Bharti, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Pankaj Saini, Counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a pair of shoes from Onitsuka Tiger of Rs.7,148/- on 8.11.2021 through online. On 18.6.2022 the complainant gave the above said shoes to accused for dryclean vide token No. T12252 dated 18.6.2022. At that time the shoes of the complainant was in good condition and there was not any damage n the shoes of the complainant. Opposite party assured the complainant that opposite party will deliver the above said shoes to the complainant after dry-cleaning on 21.6.2022. On 20.06.2022 at about 1.00p.m. opposite 4party telephonically called the complainant that opposite party was unable to dryclean the shoes of the complainant because there was a cut on the shoes of the complaint. On the same day i.e 20.6.2022 the complainant visited opposite party and told opposite party that at the time of handing over the same the shoes of the complainant was in good condition and there was no cut in the shoes of his client. AT the time of handing over the shoes opposite party had checked the shows of the complainant and it was in good condition. On the same day i.e 20.06.2022 at about 7.11 a.m. opposite party had telephonically called the complainant form mobile phone No. 9560984839 and asked the complainant to collect the shoes from his shop and asked the complainant that opposite party was unable to dryclean the shoes of the complainant. The opposite party had damaged the shoes of the complainant. On 22.06.2022 the complainant visited opposite party and asked opposite party to replace the shoes of the complainant with new or to pay the amount of shoes to the complainant but opposite party did not pay any heed towards the request of the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 28.06.2022 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) replace the shoes with new one or to pay the amount of Rs.7,148/- the cost of the shoes alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of due till actual realization.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that there was no relation between the present complainant and opposite party as consumer and service provider because as per bill of said shoes, the owner was Ms. Aastha. The complainant had not come with clean hands before this Hon’ble Commission and had concealed the actual and true facts from the Hon’ble Commission. The opposite party had been maintaining its pick-up centre at Sector-7, Faridabad, where the opposite party used to receive the goods for dryclean purpose and the dryclean work done at its dryclean center situated at Sector-37,Faridabad. As per procedure, the opposite party used to collect the goods at its prick up center and the same was checked at the dryclean center and if any damage found in the goods supplied by customer,, then the opposite party used to inform the customer about the same. On 18.06.2022 the complainant visited the pick up centre of the opposite party at Sector-7, Faridabad for dryclean his shoes and handed over the same to the pick up boy vide token No. T12252 dated 18.06.2022 and same was sent to Dryclean Centre at Sector-37, Faridabad on 19.06.2022. At the dryclean centre of opposite party, the executive checked the said shoes of the complainant and found a cut remark on one shoe (outer-side) and the said executive snapped the photo and sent to proprietor of opposite party on 19.06.2022 and the opposite party forwarded the same to the complainant. The complainant came to the opposite party and checked the said shoes and requested the opposite party to get it repair and hence, the opposite party for the satisfaction of customer agreed for the same. Accordingly, the opposite party got the said damaged shoes repaired and dry cleaned the same. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–Tumbledry. with the prayer to: a) replace the shoes with new one or to pay the amount of Rs.7,148/- the cost of the shoes alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of due till actual realization. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Mohit Sharma, Ex.C-1 – legal notice,, Ex.C-2 – postal receipt, Ex.C-3 – bill,, Ex.C-4 & 5 – photos, Ex. C-6 - statement of account, Ex.C-7 – Aadhaar card.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW-1/A – affidavit of Neeraj Kumar, authorized person of M/s. Tumbledry, Shop No. 2350, Sector-7A, Dividing Road, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 & 2 – photos,
6. As per statement of account vide Ex.C-6, Mohit Sharma is the owner of the shoes. Mrs. Astha who has delivered the Mohit’s shoes to opposite party. Cash memo is in this regard is Ex.C3. After going through the pictures submitted by the complainant vide Ex.C4 & C5, the date of purchase of shoes is 8.11.2021 and date of delivery for the dryclean is 18.6.2022 it means that shoes were six months old and the complainant has used the shoes with no complaint. There is No Objection by the opposite party on the cash memo that there was any cut or it was damaged.
7. Keeping in view of the pictures submitted by the complainant, it shows that the shows are damaged and in bad condition. Hence, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant, subject to return the old shoes alongwith Rs.1100/-
as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be madewithin 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 12.06.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
