State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shivaji Marutirao Nawale vs Paras- The Raymond Shop on 12 August, 2022
1 FA/1374/2019
Date of filing :09.08.2019
Date of order :12.08.2022
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1374 OF 2019
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 536 OF 2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.
Shivaji S/o Marutirao Nawale,
R/o Plot No.21, "Shivneri", Bhagyanagar,
Aurangabad. APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Paras - The Raymond Shop,
5-14-33, Khanna Chambers, Adalat road,
Aurangabad.
2. Raymond Ltd,.
Through its Chairman and Managing Director,
Mr.Gautam Hari Singhaniya,
New Hind House, Narottam Morarji Marg, Ballad Estate,
Mumbai 400001
3. Mr.Sanjay Behl,
CEO of Raymond Ltd,. (Lifestyle),
Raymond Ltd,.
New Hind House, Narottam Morarji Marg,
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400001 RESPONDENT No.1to3
CORAM :Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Judicial Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv.G.A.Kshirsagar for appellant,
Adv.N.T.Tribhuwan for respondents.
2 FA/1374/2019
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 12/08/2022) Per Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The appellant Shivaji Marutirao Navale has preferred this appeal against the judgement and order of District Commission, Aurangabad in consumer complaint No.536/2018 decided on 10.7.2019.
2. It is the case of compliment that he is resident of Aurangabad. The opponent no.1, is authorised shop of Raymond Limited in Aurangabad. The opponent no.2 is the manufacturer of various types of clothes and Shirting suiting. On 03.04.2018 after going through the varieties of clothes in the shop of opponent no.1, he has purchased Parx jeans pant and Suiting from opponent no.1. The readymade parx jeans of 34 size in waist found suitable and perfect to him after its trial. However, the length of pant was long. There was facility of alteration in the shop of opponent no.1. Therefore, the complainant purchased jeans pant and suiting worth of Rs.4,287/- out of which the value of the jeans pant was Rs.2,199/-. The complainant paid amount of Rs.4,287/- by way of credit card. Then the tailor master of opponent no.1 measured the length of pant of complainant and asked the complainant to collect the pant in the evening. Before taking the delivery of said pant, the complainant has taken trial of length of the pant. He found that length was shortened than the actual measurement taken by 3 FA/1374/2019 the tailor master, of opponent no.1. He has brought it to the notice of the shop manager. He realised the mistake and told the complainant that he will cure the defect of length, by adding some patch to it inside the bottom of pant and asked the complainant to come for delivery on the next day. On next day, when the complainant went to the shop of opponent no.1 he found that the patch was stitched to extent the length of jeans pant was looking shabby and indecent. Therefore, he requested the opponent no.1 to cure all the defects immediately or to refund the entire amount of jeans pant. However, the opponent no.1 behaved in arrogant manner and refused to do needful. He refused to deliver jeans pant to the complainant. therefore, said pant is lying in the shop of opponent no.1. Due to poor workmanship on the part of opponent's tailor master, in carrying out alteration of jeans pant, it has caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Which amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on the part of opponent no.1. The complainant has issued notice to opponents calling upon the opponents to return the price of the jeans pant along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of purchase of pant till realisation of entire amount. The opponent no.2 gave reply to said notice and informed him to get the replacement of jeans pant. Therefore, the complainant visited the shop of opponent no.1 and requested him to refund the price of pant, but the opponent no.1 refused to refund the price of pant. Hence, the complaint constrained to file the 4 FA/1374/2019 consumer complaint. He has requested for refund of price of pant with 12% interest from 3-4 2018 till realisation of the amount and also claimed to Rs.10,000/- as a compensation towards mental agony and Rs.2,500/- towards cost of proceeding.
3. The opponent no.1 has filed reply to the consumer complaint and denied all adverse allegations. The copy of said reply is at page no. 30 to 39. The opponent no.1 denied the deficiency in service on the part of opponent no.1. It is the contention of opponent no.1 that, the complainant has suppressed the real facts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and their employees. The opponent no.1 is the partnership firm. The complainant has given wrong description to opponent no.1. The complainant has not arrayed the proper parties. The opponent no.1 is not dealing with the manufacturing activities, he is only selling the products of Raymond provided by the company. It is admitted by opponent no.1 that complainant has purchased suiting and readymade jeans pant of Raymond brand. It is admitted that the complainant has purchased jeans pant and there is facility of alteration available with the showroom of respondent no.1. And the alteration of pant was done as per instructions of complainant. This service of alteration is not included in price of pant. The alteration facilities made available to the customers to avoid the inconvenience of alteration work. It is done as per the instructions of customer. It is denied that there 5 FA/1374/2019 is contract as consumer and service provider between complainant and opponent. The complainant has purchased the jeans pant and Suiting after completely satisfied, with the product. As the complainant is short in height he requested the tailor master to shorten the length of the jeans pant purchased by him. After taking measurement as per the direction of complainant the tailor master has altered the length of jeans pant. The choice of alteration is with the complainant and it is not obligatory to get alter the product from the tailor master, available in the shop of opponent no.1. The act of alteration cannot be mixed into procedure adopted while purchase of respective product. There is no liability of opponents as there is no deficiency in service on the part of opponent no.1. It is the contention of opponent no.1 that the tailor master working in the shop of opponent no.1, is well experienced and appointed with necessary training. The complainant has avoided to make him party to the complaint. It is denied that there is any mistake committed by tailor. the patch was added by the tailor as per instruction of complainant, inside the bottom of jeans pant. It is the contention of opponent no.1, that nothing is happened as narrated by complainant. It is the complainant who behaved in strange and arrogant manner. It is denied that the opponent no.1 refused to deliver the jeans pant of the complainant. The complainant was asked that if he wants to take another jeans pant of same brand he can very well exchange from the shop. This fact is also evident from the letter issued 6 FA/1374/2019 by the company to the complainant. However, the complainant was not interested in taking back the jeans pant, but he was interested in dragging the opponents, for compensation. Hence, he has filed the consumer complaint, on ill founded grounds. There is no negligence on the part of opponents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opponent and no fault of the opponents. The District Forum pleased to allow the complaint partly with direction to refund the price of the jeans pant by deducting GST amount.
4. The complainant has preferred this appeal against order of District forum on the following grounds.
That, the District Forum has not appreciated the facts and evidence properly. It is wrongly observed that the complainant has used a pant for some days. The order is passed without considering the facts and evidence. The District forum ought to have awarded compensation towards mental agony and cost of proceedings and interest there on. The District Forum failed to consider all these aspects. Hence, the appeal is filed for just and proper relief.
5. The appellant is not attending the appeal since long. The Advocate for respondent has submitted that opponent has already filed written notes of argument. However, the appellant has not filed written notes of argument. He is also not attending for hearing of appeal. Hence, heard the Advocate for opponent and the matter 7 FA/1374/2019 adjourned for hearing of appellant. However, he remained absent. Hence, the appeal is decided on the basis of record.
6. On perusal of record and respective submissions of the parties, and the pleadings & considering the admitted facts, it reveals that it is not disputed that the opponent no.1 is dealing with the sales of Raymond products and opponent no.2 is manufacturer of Raymond clothes and suiting. The complainant had been to the shop of opponent no.1 and purchased the jeans pant and the suiting from the shop of opponent no.1 on 3rd April, 2018. He has purchased Jean pant of Rs.2,199/- and suiting of Rs.2,088/-. Thus, total invoice was of Rs.4,287/- inclusive of tax. Therefore, transaction is of purchase and sale between complainant and opponent no.1 and they are customer and service provider respectively. However, as submitted by opponent there is no dispute regarding the material or manufacturing defect of product purchased by the complainant. Admittedly he purchased jeans pant which was suited him properly. It was long in length, it is not disputed that, facility of alteration was available in the shop of opponent. According to him he has claimed refund of the amount or to cure all defects. However, the opponent opposed the complainant. According to opponent no.1 the tailor master on the instruction of complainant has altered the pant.
8 FA/1374/2019
7. However, according to complainant the pant was shortened. Hence, said tailor master told him that he would attach patch inside the bottom and would alter the pant in length. However, the complainant found that there was shabby patch and indecent alteration. Therefore, the complainant asked him to return the price of pant, or cure the defects. However, the opponent refused for it and behaved in arrogant manner. It is alleged by the complainant that, there was poor workmanship on the part of tailor master in carrying alteration of the jeans pant. It has caused mental agony to the complainant and it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency service on the part of opponents. Therefore, he issued notice to opponent. The opponent no.2 has shown willingness to return the pant. Therefore, he approached to opponent no.1 and made demand of refund of purchase price. However, the opponent no.1 opposed for the same. Therefore, he constrained to approach the District Forum.
8. Besides the bare words of complainant there is nothing on record to prove the allegations against the opponent about arrogant behaviour on the part of opponent no.1 or refusal to return the price of pant. On the contrary, it reveals from the reply given by opponent no.2 that he has informed the complainant to get replaced the pant, but he himself has asked the opponent no.1 to refund the price. Which shows that, though opponent no.2 was ready to replace or exchange the pant 9 FA/1374/2019 the opponent was insisting for refund of price. This apparently there is no fault on the part of opponents.
9. It is important to note that the opponent has rightly submitted that there was no dispute regarding the material are the manufacturing defect allegations about defective sale on the part of opponents. However, admittedly the complainant has purchased readymade jeans pant and he himself asked the tailor master in the shop of opponent to shorten the pant. The allegation of complaints are in respect of alteration of pant into the length. According to him it was not altered properly. Therefore, there is required to give patch from inside the bottom and it was looking shabby and indecent. Therefore, he has asked to return the price and dispute arose.
10. Here, a person who has committed mistake in altering the pant is not made party. And absolutely there is no deficiency in service on the part of opponent no.1or2. The alteration was made as per instructions of complainant. He was not compelled to purchase the pant though it was long in length. It was the choice of complainant to purchase the pant or not, or to get it alter from same shop or from other. If at all anything happened between complainant and the tailor master, it was not expected to drag the opponent no. 1 and 2. before District Consumer Forum. Even the opponent no.2 has informed the complainant to get the pant exchanged.
10 FA/1374/2019 However, the District Consumer Forum pleased to award refund of purchase price by deducting GST. In fact when there was no deficiency in service on the part of opponent number 1 and 2 no such directions are necessary under Consumer Protection Act. However, the Dist. Consumer Forum has partly allowed the complaint. It is evident from record that, the opponent no.2 in the notice has admitted that he is ready to replace the pant. There is no appeal filed by the opponent against said order. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion the complainant is not entitled for enhancement of amount or compensation towards mental agony and interest as claimed. Hence, there requires no interference in the judgement and order of District Forum. In the result following order is passed.
ORDER
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne, Member Presiding Judicial Member UNK