| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA CC No. 5 of 5.1.2023 Decided on : 16-5-2023 Bharat Bhushan aged about 44 years, S/o Pawan Kumar, R/o H.No.4688, Radha Krishan Roshan Lal, Hospital Bazar, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Gurdev Emporium, Main Chowk, Dhobi Bazar, Bathinda, through its Prop./partner. Proprietor/Partner, Gurdev Emporium, Main Chowk, Dhobi Bazar, Bathinda. (deleted vide order dated 13-1-2023)
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM:- Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present:- For the complainant : Smt. Dimple Jindal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. K.S. Sidhu, for OP No.1 Opposite party No.2 deleted. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Bharat Bhushan (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Gurdev Emporium and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant that he visited the opposite parties on 6.11.2022 in the evening for purchase of cloth to stitch a Kurta Pyjama for himself. The opposite party No. 2 and his staff showed various clothes of white colour to the complainant claiming the same to be of good quality and long lasting. Under bona fide belief, the complainant purchased cloth in colour white measuring 3.5 metres against total price of Rs. 2194/- including GST, in cash vide Invoice No. 1925 dated 6.11.2022. It is alleged that thereafter, the complainant got stitched kurta pyjama of said cloth from Ajanta Tailors, Bathinda against payment of Rs. 997.50 as stitching charges. After stitching, the kurta pyjama was delivered to the complainant by the tailor Ajanta Tailors, Bathinda on 20.11.2022 and on next day, when complainant wore the said kurta Pyjama, it was got torn from the shoulders and cuff, which suggested that the cloth sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was of poor quality otherwise it is unimaginable that a brand-new kurta pyjama with just one wear would meet such fate. It is further alleged that on 23.11.2022, complainant visited opposite parties and complained about bad quality cloth and requested them to refund the sale consideration of the cloth with stitching charges of Rs. 997.50 but the opposite party No. 2 misbehaved with the complainant and refused to entertain him in the matter and asked him to leave his shop. The opposite party No. 2 also threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Thereafter, complainant got served a legal notice upon the opposite parties calling upon them to refund the cost of cloth along with stitching charges, but to no effect. The complainant alleged that due to act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered mental agony and harassment for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 2194/- being price of cloth and Rs. 997.50 as stiching charges, with interest @ 18% p.a. and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable and is devoid of merits. The complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint and that the complainant has filed the complaint on the basis of false and baseless allegations. It has been pleaded that the opposite party is not manufacturer of clothes including the cloth purchased by the complainant and they only sell it further as received from the cloth mills. The complainant had purchased cloth from the opposite party for kurta pyjama but he got stitched the kurta pyjama for himself which was too tight and thereafter he got it altered for his fitting. After alteration, the cloth might have got torn as it was not fit. Therefore, the opposite party is not responsible in the matter and have been falsely involved by the complainant. On merits, the opposite party has reiterated his version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint. On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, the name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted vide order dated 13-1-2023 from the array of the parties. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 4.1.2023 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite pary No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhpal Singh dated 13-4-2023 (Ex. OP-1/1). The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased cloth for Kurta Pyjama from opposite party vide tax invoice Ex. C-2 and thereafter got stitched Kurta Pyjama from Ajanta Tailors vide Ex. C-5. However, when the complainant was trying to wear the said Kurta Pyjama on 21-11-2022, it got torn from shoulder and cuff on account of poor quality of cloth. On 23-11-2022, complainant visited the opposite party with the complaint and opposite party refused to entertain the complainant on which complainant got legal notice served but the opposite party refused to redress the grievances of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party argued that opposite party is not manufacturer of cloth purchased by the complainant and complainant got Kurta Pyjama stitched from some tailor and there was fitting problem in the Kurta Pyjama. Thereafter complainant got the same altered for a fitting and during alteration process, the cloth must have got torn and there is no deficiency in service and he prayed for dismissal of complaint. We have learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased cloth from the opposite party vide tax invoice Ex. C-2 and thereafter got the same stitched from Ajanta Tailors vide Ex. C-5. It is further admitted that said Kurta Pyjama got torn when the same was put to use by the complainant. The only question before this Commission is regarding quality of cloth. The plea of the opposite party is that there was fitting problem due to which cloth got torn but this Commission is of the view that cloth cannot got torn only due to fitting problem and it can got torn only due to defect in the cloth and refusal for reimbursement of amount to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2194/- received as cost of cloth and also pay Rs. 997.50 as cost of stitching, with interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. 6-11-22 till realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay to complainant Rs. 3500/- as compensation/damages for harassment which includes cost of litigation. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the party concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced : 16-05-2023 ( Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
