DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2023                                                                                                

                          Filed on: 23/09/2016

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                 Member                                                        

CC NO. 541/2016

Between

COMPLAINANT

Megha Sara Varghese, W/o. Jose Dominic, Asanparambil, Angadical, Puthencavu P.O., Chengannur, Alleppey 698123.

(Rep. by Adv. Murugan E.M., Room No. 929, Golden Jubilee Chamber Complex, High Court P.O., Kochi 31)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. D’Aisle Bridals, Maneparambil Arcade, Near Cochin Shipyard Main Gate, MG Road, Ernakulam 682016. Rep. by its Proprietor Twinkle.
2. Twinkle, Proprietor, D’Aisle Bridals, Maneparambil Arcade, Near Cochin Shipyard Main Gate, MG Road, Ernakulam 682016.

(Rep. by Adv. Vimal K. Chales, Chittoor Road, Valanjambalam, Kochi 16)

FINAL ORDER

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had ordered for a bridal gown for her wedding from the 1^st opposite party firm. The material for stitching the gown was selected from the opposite party from the samples shown by the 2^nd opposite party and an order also placed on 05/01/2016. The opposite party has agreed and promised to deliver a wedding gown stitched using satin finish white material which was selected and an advance amount of Rs.26,500/- was paid to the opposite party towards part payment.

The wedding date was fixed on 14/07/216. The 2^nd opposite party promised to deliver the wedding gown by the end of June. On 02/07/2016, when the complainant came for collecting the wedding gown, the opposite parties had shown a wedding gown which was stitched using a substandard material contrary to their promise given to the complainant. The opposite party had promised to stitch a white wedding gown using satin finish white material which was selected and an advance amount of Rs.26,500/- was paid to the opposite party towards part payment.

When the complainant came for collecting the wedding gown, to her utter dismay, the opposite party had shown a wedding gown which was stitched using a substandard material contrary to what they have promised on 01/05/2016. The opposite party had also promised to deliver a veil for the wedding gown and the material and stitching charges of the veil was included in the charge of the wedding gown. Since the stitching was not completed the 2^nd opposite party asked the complainant to come again after 2 days. The complainant again went to the opposite party on 03/07/2016 and the opposite party had sent her back, asking her to come back on 07/07/2016.

On 07/07/2016, the 2^nd opposite party assured that the gown was ready but again to the dismay of the complainant, the same material was used without making any alternations. Even the fit of the gown was not proper. The gown was totally unusable and therefore the complainant had bought another wedding gown from abroad. Since the opposite party did not deliver the veil, the complainant had to but the same from another shop which again resulted in additional cost.

The complainant got married on 14/07/2016 and had to use the new gown and veil which she had purchased from other shop consequent to the deficiency in service offered by the opposite party. The opposite party neither returned the advance amount nor delivered the wedding gown. Even after repeated demands the opposite party is not willing to return the advance amount. The complainant states that the acts of the opposite party caused severe mental agony and monetary loss. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant states that the opposite party is liable to return the advance amount received by the complainant. Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the monetary loss caused to the complainant along with 12% interest per annum from 01/05/2016 till the date of payment and also get Rs.26,500/- as advance payment to the opposite party along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant by the action of the opposite party with cost of proceedings.

2. Notice.

Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission. Upon notice 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed their joint version.

3. Version of opposite parties

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. These opposite parties deny all averments in the complaint except which are those specifically admitted. It is admitted that the 1^st opposite party is a bridal dress design and sale shop and the 2^nd opposite party is the proprietor of the 1^st opposite party. The averment that the complainant ordered for a bridal gown for her wedding from 1^st opposite party and the material for stitching the gown was selected from the opposite party from the samples shown by the 2^nd opposite party and order was placed on 01/05/2016 is admitted.

The averment that the opposite parties has agreed and promised to deliver a wedding gown stitched using satin finish white material and an advance amount of Rs.26,500/- was paid to the opposite party towards part payment is false and hence denied. The complainant gave an order for a bridal gown in ivory colour. This was particularly so as pure white bridal gown would not match the complexion of the brides in Kerala. The averments in paragraph 2 of the complaint are false and hence denied the averment that the 2^nd opposite party promised to deliver the said wedding gown by the end of June, 2016 as the wedding date was fixed on 14/07/2016 is admitted. As promised, the 1^st opposite party had made the wedding gown ready by 02/07/2016 itself. The averment that on 02/07/2016 when the complainant came for collecting the material, to her utter dismay the statement that the opposite party had shown a wedding gown which was stitched using a substandard material contrary to what they had promised on 01/05/2016 is false and vehemently denied. As per the order given by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party was supposed to stitch a wedding gown in ivory colour with crochet lace appliques arranged to give a lace fabric like appearance. It is submitted that the wedding gown prepared by the 1^st opposite party did have a lining layer made of satin. The said satin material was overlaid by a layer of tulle (net), which in turn had crochet appliques added on it to give it a fabric like appearance as per the order given by the complainant. In wedding gowns, it is natural that some margin is added to the measurements taken on the date of giving the work order. This is to ensure that in case the bride puts on weight from the date of giving the order to the date of the marriage, sufficient fabric is available. Also a dress that is marginally bigger can be reduced to suit the bride’s most recent measurements, however, increasing the measurements in wedding gown is a herculean task. The actual measurements therefore can be implemented in a wedding gown only near the date of delivery. The wedding gown and veil was ready as per instructions on 06/07/2016 itself. The complainant’s fiancé was supposed to collect the wedding gown and veil on 06/07/2016. But the complainant’s fiancé did not turn up on 06/07/2016. It was because of the advice from her relatives and fiancé that she gave order for the wedding gown with the 1^st opposite party as the wedding gown and veil if bought from Dubai would have cost at least 1.3 lakh Rupees. She intended to buy the gown from Dubai and she was expecting huge discounts on July 6^th to 9^th which was Eid-al-fitr holidays in Dubai. And this was the reason why she made various complaints about the wedding gown, even though there were none. The averment that the gown was totally unusable and therefore the complainant had to buy another wedding gown from abroad is false and vehemently denied. There was and there is no defect in the wedding gown and these opposite parties are ready to produce the said wedding gown as and when required and this Commission can very well see that the said wedding gown free from any defect. The further averment that as the 1^st opposite party did not deliver the veil as had promised earlier, the complainant had to buy the same from another shop which again resulted in additional cost is false and hence denied. The averment in paragraph 4 of the complaint that the complainant got married on 14/07/2016 and had to use new gown and veil which she had purchased from other shops consequent to the deficiency in service offered by the opposite party is false and hence denied. There was no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party. The averment that the opposite party thereafter neither returned the advance amount not delivered the wedding gown is false and vehemently denied. The wedding gown was not delivered as complainant was not ready to pay the balance amount on the agreed date of delivery. The said wedding gown and veil are still in the custody of the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party is ready and willing to hand over the same to the complainant on payment of the balance amount. The 2^nd opposite party never exhibited any false sample to the complainant. The wedding gown stitched for the complainant is without any defects or deficiency. The said wedding gown and veil is still in the custody of the 1^st opposite party, and since the dress was custom made as per the complainant’s requirements and measurements the same cannot be used for any other purpose or for any other brides. For the same reason, the 1^st opposite party faced a loss of Rs.26,500/- due to the failure of the complainant in honouring her purchase order. The gown which was shown to the complainant on 02/07/2016 was in ivory colour with crochet lace appliques on it as instructed by the complainant on 01/05/2016. The material used for the wedding gown was satin lining, overlaid by layer of tulle, which in turn had crochet lace appliques added on it to give a lace fabric like appearance as was the order placed by the complainant. The opposite parties not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and on the other hand complainant is liable to pay to the 1^st opposite party sum of Rs.26,500/- as the balance purchase price and receive the wedding gown and veil from the 1^st opposite party. There is no cause of action for the above complaint. The cause of action alleged is imaginary. The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.     

4. Evidence

The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A5. No oral evidence from the side of the complainant.

Opposite parties filed 4 documents which are marked as Exbt. B1 to B4. 2^nd opposite party filed proof affidavit also. Evidence was closed. Heard both parties.

5. Points taken for consideration in this case are

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience we have considered issue No. (1) and (2) together.

We have verified the facts of the case, version filed by the opposite party and evidence filed from both sides. The case of the complainant is that she had placed order for a customized white wedding gown with satin material having embroidery work along with a veil. The complainant had agreed to purchase the gown for a total price of Rs.53,000/-. The complainant had made an advance payment of Rs.26,500/- on 01/05/2016 as evidenced by Exbt. A1. As per Exbt. A2 dated 07/07/2016, the complainant had spent 5810AED for buying an ivory/petal colour wedding dress (Total 2905). Exbt. A3 is a bill dated 12/07/2016 for Rs.20,320.50. It is a bill from De-Fab, Mani Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi. Exbt. A4 is cash receipt No. 2800 for Rs.7500/- dated 12/07/2016 issued by Fassini Kochi. Exbt. A4 is a certificate of marriage of the complainant.

Exbt. B1 produced by the opposite party is an order slip issued by the opposite party. No date and signature is seen in the wedding order slip. Exbt. B2 is the design of the wedding gown. Exbt. B3 is the true copy of the Dubai Calendar for the year 2016. Exbt. B4 is the true copy of the facebook pages of the Bridal Showroom Dubai (2 Nos.)

The complainant had ordered for a customized white wedding gown with satin material along with a veil. The complainant states in her complaint that the opposite party had stitched the gown using a substandard material contrary to what was promised. Since the wedding was fixed on 14/07/2016, the complainant had to buy another veil and gown from another shop on 09/07/2016. On 12/07/2016 he had to spent another Rs.7,500/- for the new veil. On 12/07/2016, she had also spend Rs.20,320/-. The complainant’s counsel at the time of hearing argued that “the complainant had to spent Rs.83,015/- on account of the deficiency of the service on the part of opposite party. Due to the deficiency in service from the part of opposite party the complainant had to spent another 2905 AED for the new gown (AED 2905X19=Rs.55,195/- +20230+7,500).”

(AED also known as the United Arab Emirates Dirham. It is the currency of the United Arab Emirates.)

The opposite party has not produced any contra evidence to prove that the allegations raised by the complainant are not correct. The opposite party filed 4 documents which was not sufficient to prove that the gown was prepared using the same material which was of high quality as selected by the complainant. Hence we cannot disbelieve the words of the complainant. From the available evidence and documents in this case, issue No. (1) and (2) are found in favour of the complainant. As per Exbt. A1, A2, A3 and A4, the issue is found in favour of the complainant and the following orders are hereby issued.

1. The opposite parties shall refund the advance amount Rs.23,500/- (Rupees twenty three thousand five hundred only) to the complainant as per Exbt. A1 Estimate No. 218.
2. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service from their part.
3. The opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
4. The liability of the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally.

The above order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.         

Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 25^th day of July, 2023.

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

D.B.Binu, President

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s evidence:

Exbt. A1:    Copy of Estimate dated 01/05/2016

Exbt. A2:    Copy of receipt dated 09/07/2016

Exbt. A3:    Copy of bill dated 12/07/2016

Exbt. A4:    Copy of cash receipt dated 12/07/2016

Exbt. A5:    Copy of Marriage Certificate

Opposite parties’ evidence

Exbt. B1:    Order Slip

Exbt. B2:    Design sketch

Exbt. B3:    Copy of Dubai Calendar for the year 2016

Exbt. B4:    Copy of the facebook pages of “the Bridal Showroom, Dubair”

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 15/2021

Order Date: 30/05/2023