BAL KRISHAN CHAUDHARY vs BAND BOX DRY CLEANERS

MR. Bal Krishan Chaudhary of Karnal has come up in appeal against the order dated 16.10.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Karnal, whereby his complaint against M/s. Band Box Dry Cleaners of Karnal alleging deficiency in service in the matter of dry-cleaning of his woollen suits has been dismissed by concluding as under: "But, in the context of the circumstances of the case in hand, it is not possible for this Forum to hold whether the slight change in the hue of the pants was on account of the inherent defect in the process or material employed by opp. party for dry cleaning or if it was on account of the liquid tea that had fallen upon the pant or otherwise. For this reason, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs".

THE complainant had approached the learned District Consumer Forum, Karnal, with the grievance that his woollen cream coloured pants given by him for dry cleaning on 22.2.1996 to M/s. Band Box Dry Cleaners of Karnal were totally damaged in the process of dry cleaning by the respondents. According to the complainant, the pants required dry cleaning only because some drops of tea had fallen thereon, but the dry- cleaner respondent had completely spoiled its colour as it has got disfigured and faded completely in the process of dry cleaning. This had caused a loss of Rs. 4,000 /- to the complainant on account of the price of the suit. In their reply, the respondents totally denied the allegations made in the complaint and refuted the charge of deficiency in service on their part. THE learned District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint by giving the aforesaid conclusion. In the appeal before us, Mr. Ram Chander Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the complainant was an Advocate by profession who would generally not pick up quarrels with anybody unless he was fully convinced that damage had been done due to the negligence of the respondents. Moreover, he had been an old customer of the respondents and the present complaint was filed only because his pants actually got damaged during the process of dry cleaning by the respondents. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Gandhi, the proprietor of the respondent-firm, who appeared in person, has vigorously pleaded that the fading of colour could be the result of its mixing with other clothes, which may have caused patches of deep or light colours.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we have ourselves seen the coat of the suit and the pants which were dry cleaned by the respondents. The pants are certainly damaged and its colour has completely faded and these do not give the appearance of being a part of the suit. The colour of the pants does not match with the colour of the coat and in any case it cannot be worn as a suit, much less by the complainant-appellant, who is an Advocate. Once the basic material fact relevant for the adjudication of the dispute stands admitted in the written statement filed by the respondents that the complainant had handed over the pants for dry cleaning, which was done by them, the subsequent denial regarding negligence on their part or the deficiency in service rendered by them loses its importance. On one side, it is claimed that they are expert dry cleaners and had they known it that the pants were the part of a suit they would have insisted on the dry cleaning of the suit itself instead of pants alone; while on the other hand it has been pleaded that the colour had not faded at all and they were not liable for the same. In any case, we are of the considered view that the complainant- appellant has successfully established deficiency in service on the part of the respondents for which they are liable to compensate the complainant-appellant. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we consider that ends of justice would be adequately met if the suit is retained by the complainant and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- is paid by the respondents to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.