RAJIV GUPTA vs TILAK DRY CLEANERS

SRI Rajiv Gupta, complainant-appellant in person has been heard. He has argued the matter with ability.

THE order dated 15.5.1999 passed by District Forum-II, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 354/1998 whereby his complaint has been dismissed against M/s. Tilak Dry Cleaners. THE complainant alleged that he had delivered a Banarasi Sari for dry-cleaning the cost of which Sari was Rs. 3,000/-. Receipt No. 4225 dated 5.3.1998 was issued to the complainant. Delivery was taken. It was found by him after looking to the Sari at his house that it has been damaged in the sense that discolouration had taken place inasmuch as some other marks of colour were imprinted on the Sari. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 2,000/- as compensation, Rs. 1,100/- as cost apart from the price of Sari. The matter was contested by the dry-cleaners who alleged that the Sari was delivered on 15.3.1998 in absolute original condition after taking Rs. 25/- from the complainant as its dry-cleaning cost and on the carbon copy of the original receipt issued an endorsement was made by the complainant that the Sari was in perfect condition. It was further pleaded that there were some other reason for instituting the complaint inasmuch as there will be no other proof available with the dry-cleaners as the best evidence being the admission of the person concerned was already available to disprove the complainant''s version.

After examining the respective contentions raised, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant/appellant had voluntarily written the aforesaid endorsement and no objection was raised at the time of making that endorsement. It, therefore, concluded further that the complainant was satisfied that the Sari was not damaged in any manner whatsoever.

IT may further be pointed out that while the endorsement was made by the complainant on 15.3.1998 while taking the delivery of the Sari, the complaint was filed by him on 7.12.1998. Nine months had already elapsed and, therefore, passage of several months between the date of delivery and the date on which the complaint has been filed may not rule out many other reasons of damage to the Sari including afresh dry-cleaning at some other place. Be that as it may, there is ample reason in the order of the District Forum in dismissing the complaint which does not call for any interference. The appeal consequently is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs throughout. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.