Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.163 /24.08.2018
Hardeep Kaur
13/11A, 3rd Floor, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi …Complainant
Versus
OP1- Veena Nandwani &
OP2- Rohet Nandwani
Khwashish Image Studio
7/46, Shankar Road, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 24.08.2018
Coram: Date of Order: 05.06.2024
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female
ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –There is consumer dispute between the complainant and the OPs that the complainant/buyer selected one dress material and placed an order to stitch the same to OP/drapper, however, when complainant visited OP, the dress was not ready within the time given as well as cheap material was used, she asked for refund of amount of advanced amount Rs. 6,000/- but OPs failed to return.
1.2. Whereas, it is opposed by the OPs that the dress material was as per selected by the complainant, however, when the complainant visited the OP and she suggested some changes in the dress stitiched as well as there was issue of fitting, which was corrected but the complainant failed to collect the dress despite it was ready. She is not entitled for refund of advance amount or other relief. Moreover, the dress is still lying with the OP, it may be collected subject to payment of balance amount of Rs.15,000/-.
2.1. (Case of complainant) – On 07.02.2018 the complainant visited the shop of OPs and selected dress material, which was to be stitched and it was to be delivered on or before 21.02.2018. The total agreed amount was Rs. 21,000/- and she paid Rs. 6,000/- in advance. On 20.02.2018 she went to the shop of the OPs to check/try the dress and its stitching, however, the OPs had not stitched dress as per order and specifications given besides cheap material was used and cloth was also not the same which was selected. The OPs failed to deliver the dress in time and complainant could not use it for the occasion (of attending marriage) the dress was taken and advance payment was made. The complainant visited many times to the OPs and also made many calls, the same were not attended or responded by the OPs and their staff to refund the advance amount. On 18.05.2018 OPs sent SMS from the mobile phone to pick up the dress till 18.05.2018, however, the complainant was not interested since dress was stitched badly that too with cheap material.
On 18.05.2018 the complainant went to the OPs shop to seek refund of the advance amount, however, the OPs and others presented had shouted to the complainant in loud voice by making remarks on her physique and cracked joke in the presence of staff and other known persons. The OPs failed to refund the amount of 6,000/-. The complainant also served legal notice dated 28.05.2018 asking for refund of amount but it was not refunded and frivolous reply was made. That is why the complaint for refund of amount with interest at the rate of 12%pa and compensation (without specifying the amount) in lieu of misbehavior and harassment and costs of litigation.
2.2. The complaint is accompanied with copy of bill no. 1787 dated 07.02.2018 (showing article delivery date of 17.02.2018), legal notice dated 28.05.2018, reply dated 22.06.2018 and whatsapp message dated 18.05.2018..
3.1 (Case of OPs)- The OPs filed their written statement and opposed the complaint on all counts that neither there is any deficiency of service nor any refund or other relief is made out in favour of complainant and against the OPs.
On 07.02.2018 the complainant came at the shop of OPs, she selected one garment of blue colour for getting a dress stitched; the material was selected out of various garments shown. Complainant placed order for making a dress for Rs. 21,000/- and she paid Rs. 6,000/- in advance and balance amount was agreed to be paid on 17.02.2018, which was date of delivery of stitched dress. Bill no. 1787 dated 07.02.2018 was issued and at that time complainant disclosed her name as Rosy with her contact number.
3.2. However, none came for taking the delivery on due date but on 21.02.2018, the complainant after trial requested/suggested for some changes, which was agreed upon by the OPs as per her choice. The dress was made ready and no one came to collect it later, it is still lying with the OPs and they are ready to hand over it, to subject to payment of balance amount of Rs. 15,000/-
OPs also denied other allegations; complainant did not visit shop on 20.02.2018 but on 21.02.2018 vis-à-vis the dress was ready on 17.02.2018, it was complainant who suggested some changes and there was issue of fittings. It was never disclosed to the OPs that dress was got made for attending the marriage. Since, the dress was not collected, that is why SMS was sent on 18.05.2018 to the complainant to take the delivery. No incident had happened on 18.05.2018, as alleged in the complaint, it is an afterthought. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4.(Replication of complainant) –The complainant filed detailed replication and its details is reiteration of complaint. It supplements that she went to the shop of OPs on 21.02.2018 vis-à-vis due to some difficulty she could not visit on 17.02.2018 on due date of handing over the dress. She had received SMS on 18.-5.20218 for OPs, however, the dress was not delivered in time for the occasion it was got stitched.
5.1. (Evidence)- In order to establish the complaint, Complainant Ms. Hardeep Kaur led her evidence with the support of documents filed with the complaint.
5.2. On the other side, the OP1 Ms. Veena Nandwani, Proprietor M/s Khwahish Image Studio led evidence for both the OPs.
6.1 (Final hearing) - The parties were given opportunity to file written arguments and make oral submissions, both the sides have filed their detailed written arguments followed by oral submissions by Shri Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate and Shri Praveen Mishra, Advocate for complainant. But no oral submission were made on behalf of OPs. The contentions of the parties are not repeated here, the same will be dealt and analyzed appropriately.
6.2. The complainant has relied upon A.C.Modagi Vs Cross-Well Tailor and anr [dod 9.8.1991, NCDRC] that the services of stitching by tailor are covered under the definition of services, it is not personal services and for its deficiency, the tailor is liable, which was also referred in Rohit Verma VsMr. Pradeep Kumar Shni (CC no.143/2015 dodo 29.11.2017 by DCDR Forum, (East Delhi). The complainant also refers Anju Aggarwal Vs Pawan Kumar Tiwari (RV no.284/2012 dod 23.06.2022 by NC) on the point of services, wherein the matter was remanded back to District Forum to admit the complainant.
7. 1 (Findings)-The case and contentions of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the evidence on record and provisions of law. There is no dispute that complainant had ordered for a stitched dress for price of Rs.21,000/- against advance payment of Rs.6,000/- and date of delivery of article was 17.02.2018 and on that date the complainant had not visited the shop of OPs
7.2. By taking into stock of all the material on record, it is held that the evidence on record, the circumstances and material contradictions/inconsistency do not prove the case of complainant for the following reasons:-
(i) There are material contradictions in the version of complainant. There are material improvements in the complainant as compared to the contemporary record.
(ii) It is stated in the complaint that the complainant visited the shop on 20.2.2018, which was disputed by the OPs that it was 21.02.2018, then complainant confirmed it as 21.02.2018 in her replication. However, complainant in her evidence again stated the date was 20.02.2018. There is no consistency in her plea.
(iii) As per complaint and evidence led, the date was 21.02,.2018 for delivery of article but for want of delivery of dress, it lost the utility since the dress was meant for attending the function and complainant had then sought refund of amount. However, in the legal notice, the complainant pleads that the date was extended to 23.2.2018 but there is no iota of fact in the complaint or affidavit of evidence about 23.02.2018. But complainant maintains that she could not visit the shop for trial of dress, since the purpose stand defeated of occasion was over for which dress was got stitched, The statement of complainant does not inspire confidence.
(iv) The complainant alleges that on 18.5.2018, she received the SMS from OPs to collect the dress. She went to the shop on that day but she was misbehaved and insulted.
However, as per legal notice dated 28.05.2018 (it is after 10 days from date of 18.5.2018), it mentions that SMS was received on 18.5.2018 at 7 pm to pick the suit. The whattsup message has been proved and it is of 18.5.2018 at 7:02pm. However, the legal notice does not whisper an iota of fact about any episode of misbehavior or cracking of
joke, had there been any such incident, then it would have been mentioned in that legal notice of contemporary period. That episode is introduced first time in the complaint. It is material improvement.
(v) There is also no mentioning of timings in the complaint as to when the complainant visited the shop of OPs or was it after receipt of SMS from OPs. The OPs vehemently deny about visit of the complainant at their shop on 18.05.2018. The complainant's legal notice dated 28.05.2018 does not mention any fact of complainant's visits on 18.05.2018 at the shop of OPs but it mentions that she was no more interested in the dress at that stage of receipt of SMS on 18.05.2018. It also infers that she had not gone to the shop on 18.5.2018. The complainant's theory projected in the complainant collapse that she visited at shop on 18.05.2018 or episode of altercation at high pitch took place etc.
(vi) The case law/decision being relied upon by the complainant are not applicable to situation in hand because of distinguishable facts and features.
7.3. So, no case of deficiency of services, shortcoming, harassment, mental agony etc. is made out against OPs. The complaint fails. the complaint is dismissed.
8. Announced on this 5th day of June 2024 [ज्येष्ठ 15, साका 1946]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.
[Rashmi Bansal]
Member (Female)
[Inder Jeet Singh]
President
[ijs-71]
***
