BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 141 of 2014 Date of Institution : 21.10.2014.
Date of Decision : 14.10.2016.
Smt. Mamta Tada wife of Shri Jagjit Singh, resident of Bata colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Virasat Boutique, 126, Gandhi Colony, Opposite ITI Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its proprietor.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mahesh Pareek, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Pankaj Singal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that marriage of her niece namely Swati was fixed for 7.9.2014 and for that purchase she purchased clothes for 10 suits from M/s Satnali Cloth House, Sirsa worth Rs.25,450/- on 26.8.2014. She handed over clothes to the opposite party for stitching nine suits and asked to deliver the suits by 2.9.2014. Apart from these, the complainant purchased two pieces of clothes for her daughter Vriti amounting to Rs.2090/- from M/s Patiala Cloth House, Sirsa. The opposite party charged Rs.6,000/- for stitching the above said suits. However, the opposite party did not stitch the suits as per instructions of the complainant and as per measurements and designed the dresses like those are worn by modeling girls. The stitching was so poor that it appears that it has been done by some untrained and unskilled junior tailors. The measurements were not accurate and the dresses were either tight or loose. The opposite party also not delivered the suits in time and delivered the same only on 6.9.2014. The complainant was centre of the fun at the marriage facing embracing situation and the same was the situation of her daughter as op also did not stitch her suits properly. When the matter was brought to the notice of op, instead of apologizing over the matter, she misbehaved with the complainant. The opposite party has caused deficiency in service and complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony at the hands of op. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the op to pay Rs.25,450/- i.e. costs of her clothes, Rs.2090/- as costs of clothes of her daughter, Rs.6,000/- as costs of stitching charged by op and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written statement. It is submitted that on 28.8.2014 only one lady suit was given for trial purpose and nine suits were never given on that date. Two childs suits of Vriti were given on 29.8.2014 and complainant told that she would come on the next day i.e. on 29.8.2014 and asked the op to stitch one suit. She further stated that if the stitching will be according to her choice, she would ask for stitching other 3 suits otherwise will take the suits without stitching and this fact was entered in the bahi by op. On 29.8.2014 she came with suit of her daughter which was stitched. She was satisfied and asked to stitch other 3 suits of her daughter. Measurment was given and she was asked to stitch the other two suits. She had taken one suit and five suits were yet to be stitched. She again came on 30.8.2014 and 6 suits of complainant were given for stitching purpose. She deposited Rs.1,000/- for inner on asking. Then complainant sent one lady after two days and asked to return one suit of blue colour and same was given to her. Ten suits i.e. 8 suits of complainant and 2 suits of her daughter were left for stitching and op promised to return the same after stitching on 6.9.2014 and she came after trial. All the suits were taken on 6.9.2014 and the total cost of stitching of all the suits was Rs.6385/- out of which an amount of Rs.1000/- was paid in advance and Rs.5,000/- were paid at the time of delivery and Rs.385/- were left as balance to be paid by the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. The complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill of op dated 6.9.2014 Ex.C2, copy of bill of Satnali Saree House dated 23.8.2014 Ex.C3, copy of bill of Patiala cloth House dated 1.9.2014 Ex.C4, copies of bills of op dt 6.9.2014 Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and photographs of suits Ex.C7 to Ex.C17. On the other hand, op has tendered her affidavit Ex.R1.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. The complainant has failed to prove on record by way of cogent and reliable evidence that stitching of her suits by the opposite party was not proper. The complainant has not placed on file any opinion of another boutique that measurements are not accurate i.e. dresses are either tight or loose. From the photographs Ex.C7 to Ex.C17 it cannot be said that suits are not stitched properly and as per instructions of complainant and that same are stitched by untrained and unskilled tailors. The self serving affidavit of complainant is not sufficient to prove her case. We are of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove her case. Resultantly, there is no merit in the complaint and same is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 14.10.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
