M/S. AMRITSAR CLOTH HOUSE Vs. NARVADA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 30th October, 2013, of learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by respondent -Narvada Thakur, has been allowed and a direction given to it, to refund the price of suit length, to pay money equivalent to the stitching charges and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,500/ - and litigation expenses quantified at Rs.1,000/ -.

(2.) Respondent filed a complaint against the appellant alleging that she had purchased a designer suit for Rs.950/ - from the appellant, on 24.09.2010, and spent a sum of Rs.250/ - on stitching charges and another sum of Rs.200/ - for lining. She wore the suit only for a few hours on 30th September, 2010, in connection with a school function of her child and within that period of wearing, pilling appeared and some loose threads were also spotted. On the very next day, i.e. on 01.10.2010, she visited the appellant's place of business and brought the defect to the notice of its proprietor. Proprietor allegedly retained the stitched suit and promised that within fifty days, she will get replacement, as he would be writing to the manufacturer of the cloth. He also retained the bill issued to the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant allegedly did not redress the grievance of the respondent. A legal notice was served on 23.02.2011 and that notice also, did not fetch any response. She filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction for refund of the price of suit length, besides seeking stitching charges, compensation for mental & physical harassment and litigation expenses.

(3.) Appellant filed reply. It denied that it had sold any suit length to the respondent or respondent even visited its shop. Also, it denied that stitched suit alongwith the bill was submitted to the proprietor of the appellant by the respondent. With regard to the allegation regarding service of legal notice by registered post on 23.02.2011, appellant stated, "it was not in acquiescence of any legal notice as the complainant has alleged in her complaint."