Delhi

North

CC/205/2021

SEEMA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. VA DESIGN STUDIO PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJU GUPTA

16 Aug 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.:205/2021

In the matter of

 

Ms. Seema Gupta,

W/o Sh. Raju Gupta,

202, Kanungo Apartments,

71, I.P. Extension Patparganj,

Delhi-110092.                                     …                                   Complainant

 

                                                          Vs

 

M/s. VA Design Studio Pvt. Ltd.

1899, 2^nd floor,

Main road, Near Katra Shahan Shahi,

Opp. Jain Mandir, Chandani Chowk,

Delhi-110006.                                     …                                    Opposite Party

 

ORDER

16/08/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that

1. On 13th Feb. 2020, the complainant purchased one lehnga from the OP to be worn by her, on the marriage of her son on 26th April 2020 and total payment of Rs. 20,000/- was made in cash to the opposite party against invoice no. 237 dated 13th Feb. 2020.
2. The opposite party agreed to deliver the blouse piece of the said lehnga on 10th March 2020 and lehnga on 5th April 2020. The opposite party delivered the blouse piece, as agreed, on 20th March 2020 and assured to deliver the lehnga on the promised date. On 23rd March 2020, a nationwide lockdown was declared by Govt. of India and the markets were closed and hence, lehnga was not delivered to the complainant.
3. Due to the nationwide lockdown, the complainant changed the date of marriage of her son from 26th April 2020 to 24th May 2020 in anticipation that lockdown will be lifted by that time. The Govt. of Delhi vide notification dated 17th May 2020 allowed the opening of shops on odd-even number wise and hence, the husband of the complainant contacted Mr. Piyush Khanna on his mobile no. 9811347113 on 18th May 2020 and asked him to deliver the lehnga as the marriage was approaching but he declined to deliver the lehnga on the plea that they are not opening the shop yet. Again on 19th May 2020, the husband of the complainant contacted Mr. Khanna on his mobile and again requested to deliver the lehnga but this time Mr. Khanna made an excuse that the keys of the shop were with the employee, who resides outside Delhi.
4. Every request of the complainant was turned down by Mr. Khanna with one or another excuse and the complainant could not wear that lehnga in her son's marriage. The very purpose of purchasing the lehnga set was defeated due to the rigid attitude of the opposite party and complainant's Rs. 20,000/- got wasted.
5. Since the complainant has paid the money, the complainant send her husband's clerk to collect the lehnga 3-4 times but every time the clerk returned empty-handed with one or another excuse. In the nutshell, the lehnga was not delivered to the complainant, which was useless for the complainant, as the very purpose of purchasing the lehnga was defeated.

 

2.       It has been alleged that since the opposite party has failed to deliver the lehnga on time and also failed to deliver the same after repeated visits by the clerk of the complainant's husband.  The opposite party is, therefore, liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and injury caused to the complainant besides returning the value of lehnga paid by the complainant with interest. The complainant has, therefore, filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- along with interest and litigation expenses, as deemed fit by this  Forum, in the interest of justice.  The    Complainant has also filed copies of invoice dated 13.02.2020, DDMA notification dated 18.05.2020 and email dated 02.11.2020 alongwith the complaint.

 

3.       Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP and in response, the OP has filed its reply stating that:-

1. the present complaint against the OP is not maintainable because it doesn't adhere any deficiency of service on the part of the OP as the Lehnga of the complainant was ready on the due date but it was the countrywide lockdown, therefore, the govt./administration forced the OP to close its showroom and as and when the Government allowed it to be open, the showroom of the OP remained the whole day open but the complainant never came to collect her lehnga.
2. The complainant did not mention in the complaint when the marriage of her son was solemnized. Due to the lockdown, the marriage of the son of complainant would be solemnized in very simple manner without any gathering or it is also possible that the complainant has postponed the marriage of her son so the complainant would have decided not to take the delivery of the Lehnga and thereafter, she raised the claim of returning her the cost of Lehnga holding that OP was able not to give the delivery of the said Lehnga.
3. The opposite party has prepared the Lehnga within the time as promised and is still lying in the showroom but it is the complainant who would have probably postponed the marriage schedule of her son due to the severe lockdown as there were some strict restrictions of the government on the gathering and opening the shops in the market like Chandni Chowk.
4. The opposite party prepares the Lehngas according to the choice of the customers and same thing was followed in the case of the complainant and according to the choice of the complainant, the Lehnga was prepared and in the preparation the help of some expert for the work of embroidery is taken and in this process, the opposite party has to spend money with very marginal profit. The complainant had already made her mind not to take the delivery of Lehnga and therefore the husband of the complainant started to misbehave and abused OP on the mobile phone and he did not hear the request of OP who was saying that the shops in the area of Chandni chowk were not allowed to open and if the shops were found open, the huge penalty was being imposed and the shops were being ceased.
5. The complainant had referred all the date of the month of May 2020 when there was a strict lockdown in the countrywide and without emergency no one was allowed to go out from the house.
6. The complainant did not mention the date of her son's marriage when she failed to wear the Lehnga and whether the lockdown was lifted or not at the time of her son's marriage.
7. The delivery of the Lehnga could not be given due to the strict lockdown in Delhi otherwise the Lehnga was ready at every time and when the lockdown was lifted, complainant did not come to take the delivery of the said Lehnga because it appears that the marriage of complainant's son would take place without any pomp and show so the complainant would have given up the idea of taking Lehnga delivery and further created a new story against the opposite party of showing its failure in the delivery of the said Lehnga so that she may claim her money paid to the opposite party in booking the said Lehnga.
8. It is the complainant who deliberately did not take the delivery of the Lehnga so that she may impose its failure on the head of the opposite party though the complainant or her husband never made any contact with the opposite party after the lockdown was lifted.
9. The opposite party was not liable to impose the countrywide lockdown in the country which prohibited the opposite party to open the showroom and when the lockdown was lifted, the complainant never came to take the delivery of the Lehnga.
10. No cause of action ever arose against the opposite party because the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and if any delay was caused in the delivery in month of May, it was due to the countrywide lockdown not because of the opposite party.
11. It was the complainant who deliberately gave up the idea of taking the delivery of Lehnga because most probably the complainant had postponed the marriage of her son because of the gathering was not allowed.

4.       Both the parties have filed evidence by way of Affidavit. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and arguments advanced by both parties, it has been observed that:-

a) The complainant has satisfactorily established that she had placed the order for the lehnga with the OP, made full payment, and expected delivery on 05-04-2020. Though bill No. 237 issued by the OP is not as per the proper format of bill/invoice prescribed under the GST Act/ Rules and instead of Invoice, Debit voucher has been written with cutting on it, however, considering that the OP has not denied the veracity of the bill & the receipt of the payment, this document has been accepted as a proof of payment and promised date of delivery.

b) The OP has also taken defence of “Lockdown in the Covid Period”   to counter the allegations of non-delivery of Lehnga and has also argued on presumption of non-solemnisation of Marriage of Complainant’s son that has prompted the Complainant to withdraw idea of purchasing the Lehnga.

 

C) The OP has also contended that none from complainant’s side has contacted him to collect the lehnga but has also contended that the husband of the Complainant has contacted him on telephone and misbehaved with him. The OP in his reply dated 02.11.2020 to the legal notice of the Complainant, has also mentioned that on the phone, he was threatened for  dire consequences but has not explained as to why the OP has not lodged complaint with the local police in this regard.

 

d) The OP has primarily relied on the Covid-19 pandemic as the reason for non-delivery but failed to produce any evidence to support his claim that he attempted to deliver the lehnga when the lockdown restrictions were relaxed. Had the OP been sincere towards his responsibility after accepting the full consideration amount, he would have made all efforts to contact the Complainant and deliver the Lehnga immediately when the Covid norms were relaxed.

e) The OP has also not filed copies of its sales register and GST returns indicating that as to when he started opening its showroom during covid period. The OP has also failed to substantiate his claim that the marriage of complainant’s son was not solemnized.

 

5.       In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the OP's failure to deliver the lehnga, despite receiving full payment and not providing any evidence of an attempt to deliver after the lockdown was relaxed, constitutes a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The complainant has also suffered mental agony due to the OP's failure to deliver the lehnga on time, which deprived her of the opportunity to wear it at her son’s wedding. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP (M/s VA Design Studio Pvt. Ltd.) to refund       Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 05-04-2020 till the date of the payment. Besides, the OP is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant, for the mental pain, agony & harassment and litigation expenses.

6.       It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay simple interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

7.       Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                                DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

              Member                                                                                      President     

    DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                      DCDRC-1 (North)