Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/335/2016

Tanusree Das, W/o Mr. Anoop Ancil, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Band Box Store, - Opp.Party(s)

SA Partners

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 27.02.2016

                                                      Disposed on: 06.08.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.335/2016

DATED THIS THE 6^th AUGUST OF 2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Tanusree Das, W/o Anoop Ancil, R/o 102, Scion Regency, B.A.Basith Road, RahatBagh C.v.Raman Nagar, Bangalore-560 093.   By.Adv.S.A.Partners		BAND BOX STORE, # 3038, HAL 2nd Stage, 80 ft.Road, Indira Nagar, Bangalore-560 038. And also at #152/29, Dorasanipalya, Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 076. Represented through its Managing Director, Ms.Usha Rathnam.   By.Adv.E.Charles

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the Opposite Party directing to trace out and return the said saree or to pay and reimburse Rs.50,000/- as a cost of said saree and loss suffered by the Complainant, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony suffered by the Complainant due to negligent and deficient in services, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation cost, to pass any other orders.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Opposite Party is in the business of providing dry cleaning and laundry services for all types of garments including expensive sarees etc., Based on their representations and assurances, the Complainant was using Opposite Party’s services for dry cleaning and laundry for her various expensive garments time to time. The Complainant submits that during the last week of April 2015, the Complainant visited Opposite Party’s Indiranagar Store and handed over 3 expensive silk sarees, one of which was the Complainant’s highly expensive wedding saree and 3 blouses for dry cleaning purpose. The Opposite Party has informed the Complainant that said garments will be returned/delivered after dry cleaning on or after May 06, 2015. On May 09, 2015, the Complainant visited Opposite Party’s Indiranagar Store to collect her aforesaid garments. To the Complainant’s utter surprise, the representative of Opposite Party, Mr.Manohar, who was present at the store at that point of time, handed over only 2 sarees and 3 blouses and informed the Complainant that the third saree is sent back to the factory as it was not properly cleaned. The said representative of the Opposite Party, Manohar, also assured the Complainant that the said missing third saree will be delivered to the Complainant’s home by May 11, 2015. Considering the assurance, the Complainant had paid the relevant service charges of Rs.500/- and took delivery of only 2 silk sarees and 3 blouses and the Opposite Party handed over a small slip as a proof of non-delivery of one saree. However, the Opposite Party neither delivered the said missing saree to the Complainant, nor anybody contacted the Complainant in this regard on May 11, 2015 or May 12, 2015. Subsequently, on May 13, 2015, the Complainant called the Opposite Party’s aforesaid Indiranagar store to follow up the delivery of the said third missing saree. However, the person at Opposite Party’s said store informed the Complainant that Manohar is unwell and not available at the store. The person also ensured the Complainant that Manohar will get in touch with her as soon as he resumes his duties. The Complainant was continuously following up with the Opposite Party’s aforesaid Indiranagar Store for the delivery of said missing saree but all the time, the Opposite Party’s staff replied with a casual attitude that they will get back to the Complainant soon. On May 22, 2015, the Complainant again visited the Opposite Party’s said store and met Manohar, who then mentioned that the saree was misplaced. Manohar further carelessly told the Complainant that they are searching in other stores and will take another 4-5 days’ time to locate the missing saree. On the Complainant’s protest on taking too much time on returning her said saree, Manohar asked the Complainant to wait till May 27, 2015 so that the matter can be consulted with the Managing Director of the company, who was out of station at that point. On May 23,2015, the Complainant again visited aforesaid Indiranagar store and again Manohar very carelessly replied the same thing that they need time till May 27, 2015 to trace the missing saree. On Complainant’s protest for so much delay, Manohar connected the Complainant over the phone with one Mr.Vincent, who proposed that they are willing to pay a compensation for the value of the missing saree. It is pertinent to mention that the said missing third silk saree was the Complainant’s wedding saree and hence her lots of memories and emotions were attached with the said missing saree and no compensation is adequate for losing such a valuable garment and causing the Complainant mental agony and harassment. Accordingly, the Complainant refused to accept Vincent’s offer to compensate and requested him to return her said saree even if it is damaged.  Finally, on May 29, 2015 the Complainant was able to speak with Ms.Usha Rathnam, Managing Director, and she acknowledged that the said saree went missing from the first day itself and they tried their best to trace the same but they were unable to locate the said saree. Ms.Rathnam also informed the Complainant that since the saree is missing, there is no possibility of returning the damaged saree but they are ready to pay a compensation for the value of the saree. The said silk saree was the Complainant’s wedding saree and apart from an expensive one, lots of memories and emotions of the Complainant were attached with the said saree. Such losing of saree is a gross deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party which caused severe harassment and mental agony to the Complainant. Lastly, being harassed by such deficient services of the Opposite Party, on June 04, 2015, the Complainant issued a legal notice upon the Opposite Party demanding return of said saree and claiming damages and compensation due to loss of said garment. The Opposite Party not even bothered to send any response to the said legal notice issued by the Complainant and till date Complainant have not received any reply or response from the Opposite Party on her legal notice dt.4.6.2015. Due to such illegal and negligent act of the Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered harassment, mental agony and loss. There is a gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.     Hence, the Complainant submits to allow this complaint.

3.       Notice was ordered to issue to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party did appear and file the version denying the contents of the complaint filed by the Complainant. The Opposite Party admits that they are in the business of providing dry cleaning and laundry services for all types of garments including expensive sarees etc., but it is totally false to say that on the representations and assurances, the Complainant was using Opposite Party’s services for dry cleaning and laundry for her various expensive garments time to time as totally false and baseless. The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant had visited our branch at Indiranagar and handed over 3 silk sarees and it is totally false to say that one was highly expensive wedding saree and three blouses for dry cleaning purpose as the Complainant has failed to produce any proof to show that one saree is highly expensive wedding saree. Further, the Opposite Party states that whenever a customer engage their services for dry cleaning and laundry if the articles/cloths are of the highly expensive or special a note is made in the receipt of the bill, the Opposite Party produces Xerox copies of such bills where it is clearly mention on head note as “SPL” whereas the bill produced by the Complainant there is no such note which clearly goes to show that the 3 sarees or the one saree of the highly expensive are all false and concocted story only to cheat and harass the Opposite Party and to make easy money of the same without any valid proof for an ordinary saree. The Opposite Party states that the plea of the Complainant is to be believed that one of the saree is of highly expensive in that case the Opposite Party would have charged special charges as we charge in the bills produced by them when head note as “SPL” whereas the bill produced by the Complainant, it has clearly mentioned the rates charge is that of an ordinary saree and not for highly expensive as falsely claimed the Complainant.  The Opposite Party stated that the 3^rd saree is missing and not stated that the third saree is send back to factory as it was not properly cleaned is all after through stories whereas they have informed that as one saree is not traceable and asked the Complainant to come after few day so as to enable them to tract the same and moreover the Opposite Party who are in the business since 4 decades have never shown casual attitudes to their esteemed customers. The Opposite Party made the Complainant to come many a time to their shop is totally false. Where the true facts is that on the reverse of the bill there are terms and conditions clearly mentioned that in the event of the loss or misplace of any articles i.e., as per clause 6, a 15 time of our washing the ordinary rate will be given for articles lost, except small silk articles and cotton articles after one month and accordingly, the Complainant is entitled for Rs.4,500/- only. The Complainant is not at all entitled for the claim made of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the saree nor she is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony due to negligence and deficient services nor she is entitle for Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost. The Complainant has filed this complaint only to harass the Opposite Party as stated that not even single piece of paper nor material is produced to prove the claim of the complaint that the said saree is of highly expensive is all concocted and baseless allegations and the complaint is filed with malafide intention to make wrongful gain for a mistake committed by the Opposite Party which is not done intentionally or deliberately and the Opposite Party discharged their duties honestly for the customers of the past 48 years and the claim made by the Complainant is baseless arbitrary and violation of natural justice. The compensation claimed by the Complainant is fancy in nature which has no basis for calculation and more not a single piece of paper is produced to prove her stand that so called highly expensive saree and whether the Complainant has the means to buy as saree worth of Rs.50,000/-.  The claim made by the Complainant is pervers, perjury against the law of natural justice and the amount claimed by the Complainant is only to suit her illegal, cunning, selfish desires to harass both mentally and financially to the Opposite Party and also the amount claimed is again a flimsy figure to make wrong profits. On these grounds and other grounds, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant to substantiate her case, filed her affidavit evidence and got marked Ex-P1 to P4. The Opposite Party has also filed affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex-B1 to B3. The Opposite Party has filed their written arguments. Heard.

           5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

       1) Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency in service on

            the part of the OPs, if so, whether she is entitled for the relief

            sought for?

        2) What Order?

                  

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1 : Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1 :   We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version of the Opposite Parties. The admitted facts which reveals from the pleadings of the parties to the lis goes to show that it is not in dispute that during April 2015, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party’s office at Indiaranagar and handed over 3 sarees. According to the Complainant, one of which was highly expensive wedding saree and 3 blouses for dry cleaning. According to the Opposite Party, handing over of the 3 sarees and 3 blouses is admitted, but denied as they were expensive silk sarees. In this context, the evidence let in by the Complainant is scanty to come to the conclusion that the said 3 sarees were expensive sarees. It is not in dispute that the Opposite Party has handed over 2 sarees and 3 blouses and informed the Complainant that one saree is sent back to the factory as it was not properly cleaned. In this context, the Complainant has contacted the Opposite Party, but at last, it was informed to her that the said saree is missing.

8.       According to the Complainant, the said saree being very expensive and it was her wedding saree. Hence, her lot of memories and emotions were attached with the said missing saree and no compensation is adequate for losing such a valuable garment and causing the Complainant mental agony and harassment. In respect of the sentimental feelings of the Complainant, the Opposite Party’s representative Mr.Vincent has offered to compensate, but it has been refused and further she requested him to return the said saree even if it is damaged.  When the Opposite Party has taken specific plea that the said saree was misplaced, under such circumstances, it was impossible for it to trace the said saree to handover to the Complainant. Hence, this Forum has no other go except only to settle the matter on the available materials on record. We have gone through the contents of the complaint, the Complainant never stated her age and her date of marriage. In the absence of it, how old was the lost saree cannot be determined. In this context, it is the Opposite Party who has carried out the payable claim by invoking Clause-6 of the receipt marked as Ex-B3. This receipt is not in the name of the Complainant, but we have to place reliance only on the Clause incorporated on its back page. Clause-6 reads as “ Fifteen times of our washing the ordinary rate will be given for articles lost, except small silk articles and cotton articles after one month.”  In this context, the Opposite Party has taken its responsibility to pay a sum of Rs.4,500/-. In our considered view, the same is appears to be just and reasonable compensation since the purchase receipt of the missing saree is not produced by the Complainant. With regard to the sentimental feelings of the Complainant is concerned, it cannot be compensated. But anyhow, we feel it just and proper, if an amount of Rs.1,000/- is ordered to pay by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, ends of justice would meet sufficiently. We have also proposed to fix an amount of Rs.1,000/- being the cost of litigation.  Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative.

9.       POINT NO.2: In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,500/-  to the Complainant being the value of the said saree. We also direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- being compensation with cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/-.  

The Opposite Party is directed to comply this order within 6 weeks from the receipt of this Order. Failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to take proper steps as per law.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 6^th August 2018).

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER	(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Tanusree Das., who being the Complainant was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-P1	Copy of the slip
Ex-P2	Legal notice
Ex-P3	Postal receipt
Ex-P4	Proof of delivery of legal notice

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

D.Manohar, Manager., who being the Opposite Party was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party

 

Ex-B1	Authorization letter
Ex-B2	Xerox bill
Ex-B3	Original terms and conditions

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)      MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)     PRESIDENT