IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 36/S/2016.                             DATED : 26.10.2017.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

COMPLAINANT    1.       :  SRI SANJAY DAS,

   S/o Sri Sailen Das,

   Resident of Gouri Bhawan, Mangal Pandey Sarani,

   Vivekananda Pally, P.O.- Rabindra Sarani,

   P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin Code : 734 006.

O.P.                                           : WONDERLAND

   Situated at 106/1, Seth Srilal Market,    

   P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

   Pin Code – 734 001. 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Sanjiv Das, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

Brief facts of the complainant case are that the OP is running a business of readymade garments under the name and style ‘WONDERLAND’ situated at 106/1, Seth Srilal Market, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.  On 26.09.2015 the complainant purchased a shirt/kurta from the OP’s shop for his son for the occasion of Durga Puja at a sum of Rs.999/- only along with other garments vide Tax Invoice No.164 dated 26.09.2015.  The complainant’s son wore the said shirt/kurta during Durga Puja and only after wearing it for once the complainant noticed a defect with the shirt/kurta which is not normal and the same occurred due to inferior/defective quality of the cloth and the said shirt/kurta was no more in a position/condition to be worn by the complainant’s son.  On 04.11.2015 the complainant personally visited the premises of the OP with the shirt/kurta and expressed his grievance and requested the OP to replace the same and in response the OP told the complainant that the said shirt needs to be sent to the company and if the company replace the shirt, they will act accordingly.  But after a couple of weeks the OP informed the complainant that the company did not replace the shirt and as such the OP has nothing to do.  On hearing this, the

Contd…..P/2

-:2:-

complainant was utterly surprised and had to leave the OP’s premises with a bad mood as after purchasing such a costly shirt, the complainant’s son will not be able to wear the same anymore and as the complainant had to face much harassment.  The complainant then issued a legal notice through his ld advocate Sri Sanjiv Das on 19.02.2016 to the OP and the said notice was duly received by the OP on 22.02.2016 and in reply to the said notice the OP has issued a notice to the complainant’s advocate but he neither exchanged the shirt nor refund money.  Hence, this case. 

The OP has entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint have been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable.  It has been stated by the OP that the garments were thoroughly and deeply examined by the complainant and his companions at the time of purchase and they saw a number of garments (15 to 20 items) varieties and qualities after spending one hour or more and took trial.  It has been further stated by the OP that it was told to the complainant/purchaser that the kurta was delicate one and it required care in use/wearing and even in washing and detergent materials should be superior quality, but the complainant and his son have used the said kurta at least 7 to 10 days very roughly without caring the cautions given to them at the time of purchase and so called damage is due to rough handling and careless washing of the kurta by the complainant. 

It has been further contended by the OP that as per terms and conditions of sale as mentioned in the tax invoice the complainant is not entitled to exchange the goods (disputed shirt/kurta) after 7 days from the date of purchase and no money is refundable and as the sold kurta did not suffer any manufacturing defect and as no unfair trade practice has been adopted by the OP the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed and the instant case is liable to be dismissed. 

          To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Photocopy of Tax Invoice, bearing Tax Invoice No.164, dated 26.09.2015, issued by the OP.

2.       Photocopy of Legal Notice (bearing Ref. No.SD/LN/FEB/04, dated 19.02.2016) issued on behalf of the complainant. 

3.       Photocopy of Acknowledgement Card of the aforesaid Legal Notice. 

4.       Photocopy of Postal Receipt, being No.BRW 199080469IN, dated 19.02.2016.

Contd…..P/3

-:3:-

5.       Photocopy of Reply Notice, dated 29.02.2016, issued by Mr. P.D. Dalmia, advocate on behalf of the OP.  

          Complainant has not filed evidence in-chief.

Complainant has filed written notes of argument.

          OP has filed evidence in-chief.     

          OP has filed written notes of argument.                      

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

          Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

This is the case of the complainant that on 26.09.2015 he purchased a designer shirt/kurta from the shop of the OP for his son at a sum of Rs.999/- vide Tax Invoice No.164 dated 26.09.2015.  The son of the complainant wore the said shirt/kurta during Durga Puja and only after wearing it for once the complainant noticed a defect with the shirt/kurta which is not normal and the same occurred due to inferior/defective quality of the clothe and the said shirt/kurta was no more in a position to be worn by his son.  On 04.11.2015 the complainant personally visited the shop of the OP and expressed his grievance and requested him to replace the same as it was defective and in response the OP told the complainant that the shirt needs to be sent to the company and if the company replace the shirt he will act accordingly.  But after a couple of weeks OP informed the complainant that the company did not replace the shirt and as such the OP has nothing to do.  Complainant then sent a notice to the OP through his ld advocate Sri Sanjib Das on 19.02.2016 and in reply to that notice the OP also issued a notice to the complainant’ advocate, but he neither exchanged the disputed shirt nor refund money.  Accordingly, the complainant has filed this case. 

    In order to substantiated the case the complainant has submitted the Tax Invoice being No.164 dated 26.09.2015 wherefrom it appears that on 26.09.2015 the complainant purchased some garments from the shop of the OP Wonderland and paid a total amount of Rs.3,100/- out of which the item no.3 being production code no.M113953 cost Rs.999/-. 

Contd…..P/4

-:4:-

It is also not disputed by the OP that the complainant purchased a shirt/kurta from his shop on 26.09.2015 at a price of Rs.999/-vide Tax Invoice No.164 dated 26.09.2015. 

It has been contended by the OP that it was told to the complainant that the kurta was delicate one and it required extra care in use, wearing and even in washing and detergent materials should be superior quality and soft hands must be used, but the complainant and his son have used the kurta at least 7 to 10 days roughly without caring delicacy and precautions and as there was no manufacturing defect, the manufacture refused to make any replacement of the kurta and the complainant was replied accordingly. 

It has been further contended by the OP It has been contended by the OP that purchaser has read and accepted the terms and condition of sales as mentioned in the said tax invoice at the time of purchase of the garments and payment and according to said terms and condition the OP is not liable to exchange the disputed shirt or to refund the money to the complainant and the instant case is liable to be dismissed. 

 On careful scrutiny of the tax invoice being No.164 dated 26.09.2015 we find there are certain terms and conditions stated in the invoice which are as follows :-

1.       No Warranty or Guarantee against any complaint of colour fading shrinkage pilling of garments etc.

2.       Goods once sold will not be taken back.

3.       No money refundable once, cash memo is issued.

4.       Exchange allowed within 7 days from date of purchase. 

5.       No Exchange allowed without cash memo, price tag & proper packing.

6.       Exchange items to be deposited at Cash Counter and get approval slip first. 

7.       Tie, Dupatta, sherwani, Suit Kurta Pajama will not be exchanged once purchased. 

8.       In exchange of garments same item will be allowed. 

9.       Customers are requested to kindly read the above terms & conditions carefully to avoid any future complications. 

10.     Exchange time 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on any working day.

11.     All disputes subject to jurisdiction of Siliguri court/tribunal/forum only. 

  From the above terms and conditions it is clear that exchange of goods would be allowed within seven days from the date of purchase.  But here we find that the complainant purchased the disputed shirt/kurta on 26.09.2015 and he came to the shop of OP on 04.11.2015 i.e., after lapse of one month and nine days

Contd…..P/5

-:5:-

for exchange of the disputed kurta on the ground that it was defective one.  Complainant also failed to state actually what was the defect with the shirt/kurta and it was not clearly stated whether it was manufacturing defect or whether it was of inferior quality.  The disputed shirt is not placed before this Forum as material exhibit.  As per terms and conditions as stated in the tax invoice, the goods once sold will not be taken back and no money is refundable once cash memo is issued.  So, the prayer of the complainant for refund of the price of the disputed shirt cannot be entertained and as per terms and conditions as stated in the tax invoice the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.           

In the result, the case fails.

Hence, it is

                           O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.36/S/2016 is dismissed on contest against the OP, without cost.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

     -Member-                                                          -President-