BHUSHAN Vs. RAKESH AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Hissar, awarding Rs.1100/- as compensation against the appellant to the respondent, for damaging a suit entrusted to him for dry-cleaning.

(2.) The appellant is a licensee of M/s. Bandbox Pvt. Ltd. and carries on the business of dry cleaning, laundering, and art dyeing, in the said name and style at Hissar. The genesis of the case against the appellant is that on the 10th February, 1990, respondent-Rakesh Aggarwal had entrusted a new white raw silk suit (for which he had paid Rs.2,275/- for cloth and stitching), along with other garments, to the appellant for dry-cleaning. He was specifically informed that the said suit was required for the forthcoming marriage of the complainant-respondent on the 17th February, 1990, and extra care and promptitude be taken of the same. However, when the respondent on the 15th February, 1990 went to the premises of the appellant for taking delivery of the garments he found to his consternation that the said suit was completely spoilt with big yellow patches both on the coat and the pant thereof and further the said pieces were sizeably shrunk. When the complainant-respondent protested to Sh. Bhushan-appellant, he instead of making amends, misbehaved with him and declared that he had no concern whether the suit was to be used on the marriage occasion or otherwise. The respondent had no choice, but to accept the suit under protest when the appellant assured him that he would write to his head office about the matter. It is the complainant's case that the bill for the garments was retained by the appellant and no response, either from him or the head office, followed. The complainant, consequently, was compelled to arrange for the marriage garments at the eleventh hour for a heavy price, and otherwise put to considerable mental distress. General allegations are also made that the appellant in the garb of dry-cleaning merely washes, and, consequently, damages expensive clothes. In sum, a claim of Rs.10,000/- was raised.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant, a somewhat curious stand was taken in his reply to the complaint before the Forum. It was alleged that the appellant on receiving the garments on the 10th February, 1990 itself had verbally told that there were yellow and black patches and stains on the suit and other garments, and this was also incorporated in the bill issued to the respondent. However, the respondent is alleged to have requested him to try to remove the patches etc. , as his marriage day was very near and he could not arrange any new clothes. It was then the case that at the time of taking delivery, the respondent threatened him that he was the son of a Municipal Commissioner and a notable millionaire lawyer of the town, and because he had not removed the stains, he will neither pay therefor and even force him to close down his business. However, it was not denied that in fact the payment of the bill was made and the garments were received under protest. The appellant also enclosed a photo copy of his bill book for ready reference and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint