BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 83/2008
Date of presentation: 04.03.2008
Date of decision: 23.03.2011
Shri Shiv Lal Bhota, S/o Late Sh. Mirjdu Ram,
R/o Village Tikri P.O. Khagna,
Tehsil Chopal,District Shimla H.P.
… Complainant.
Versus
M/s DCAR Casuals Chaitanya Building,61,
The Mall Shimla H.P.
…. Opposite party.
For the complainant: Shri Surender Mohan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Shri Swaran Sharma, Advocate vice
Shri Peeyush Verma , Advocate.
O R D E R:
R.L. Azad (District Judge) President:- Case of the complainant in brief is that on 29.09.2007, the complainant purchased a branded jacket from the OP for `2199/-. In month of October 2007, the complainant wore the jacket only for three days and thereafter colour of the said jacket started fading and left arm of the same also started tearing. In the end of the October 2007 the complainant approached the OP and requested for replacing the said jacket. The OP asked the complainant to wear the jacket for some time and further told to return the jacket after getting the same dry-cleaned so that the same might be sent to the company for replacement. But after dry-cleaned, the colour of the jacket faded more and started giving ugly look. In the month of December 2007, the complainant handed over the jacket to the OP for replacing the same and the OP told him that the jacket would be sent to the company and after 15 days the complainant would be given a new jacket. Thereafter the complainant visited shop of the OP in second week of January 2008, for receiving a new jacket, but the OP refused to give him a new jacket and returned the old jacket to the complainant. The complainant prayed that the OP be directed to refund the price of the jacket of `2199/-, damages of `10000/- and litigation charges.
2. The OP contested the complaint. Case of the complainant is denied that the complainant purchased the jacket from the OP and that colour of the jacket got faded. It is further alleged that the alleged defects if any in the jacket are the sole responsibility of the manufacturer and the O.P. can not be held liable for the same. It is denied that the complainant visited the OP in the month of October 2007, and December 2007. It is denied that the jacket was handed over to the OP and that the OP promised to replace the same with a new one. It is also denied that in the month of January 2008, the OP handed over the old jacket to the complainant. The OP further alleged that the case of the complainant is totally false, therefore he is not entitled to the relief claimed by him. The OP also assailed the complaint on preliminary objections that the complaint has no cause of action, that the complainant has not come to law with clean hands, that the OP has not indulged in unfair trade practice, that the complainant has no locus standi, that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint and that the complainant is bad for non-joinder of the manufacturer of the jacket. The OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant to prove his case filed affidavit and also tendered in evidence copy of bill Annexure A.
4. We have heard arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties.
5. In view of the affidavit filed by the complainant and copy of bill Annexure A, it is proved that on 29.09.2007, the complainant had purchased jacket in question from the O.P. for `2199/-. It is also apparent from the statement of the complainant by way of affidavit that the colour of the jacket in question started fading after the same was put on use by the complainant only for 3 days. The left arm of the said jacket also started tearing. Thus in view of the evidence led by the complainant it is manifest that the jacket in question was of branded quality and colour of the same started fading after usage of the same for a few days and left arm of the same also started tearing. In the month of December 2007, the complainant gave the said jacket to the OP for replacing the same with a new one, but in the month of January 2008, the OP declined to replace the jacket in question and returned the same jacket to the complainant. So, keeping in view these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the OP had sold a defective jacket to the complainant by representing the same to be of a branded quality, but the colour of the said jacket started fading after usage of the jacket for few days and left arm of the same also started tearing. Hence the O.P. has indulged in unfair trade practice. So we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the price of the jacket, damages on account of mental torture and harassment and also cost of the litigation.
6. As a sequel to above, we allow this complaint and direct the OP to refund cost of the jacket amounting to `2199/- and also pay damages on account of mental torture and harassment amounting to `1500/- and litigation costs of ` 1000/- to the complainant, subject to return of defective jacket by the complainant to the OP. This order shall be complied with by the OP, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 23rd day of March, 2011.
(R.L. Azad)
President.
NMehta) (Charanjit Singh)
Member.