BHUSHAN vs Rakesh Aggarwal

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.

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. 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

On the aforesaid pleadings and the documents placed on the record and after hearing, the parties, the District Forum by its order under appeal has recorded categoric findings against the appellant (including one that he had, in fact, made interpolations in the bill to create evidence in his favour) and awarded the compensation mentioned above.

MR. Malik, learned counsel for the appellant, had primarily assailed the finding of the District Forum with regard to the interpolations in the bill. It was suggested that it was not unusual and, indeed, was the practice in the appellant''s concern that sometimes entries in Hindi were incorporated in the bills, though they were made in English language. It was suggested that because of poor carbon the entries made in Hindi in the bill may not have found the imprint on the carbon copy of the bill, which has been produced on the record. On these premises it was submitted that this adverse finding be reversed, and the others being not tenable, the appeal should be allowed. In examining the matter in its larger perspective, what first meets the eye, is the admitted fact that there is not a hint of any suggestion of previous animus or hostility between the appellant and the respondent - Shri Rakesh Aggarwal. Indeed it is the appellant'' s own case that apart from his own personal stature, the respondent - Shri Rakesh Aggarwal is the son of a notable Advocate of Hissar, and also a Municipal Commissioner thereof. It would seem extremely unusual that, as alleged by the appellant, on his mere failure to remove the already existing yellow and black patches and stains on his clothes, the respondent would raise a disorderly dispute with the appellant and then go to the length of setting up a false case against him by way of a complaint before the District Forum. This apart, the District Forum had the advantage of examining the suit carefully and have observed as under: "...The suit in question is a newly stitched one and it does not appeal to a person of common prudence that it had developed these defects simply due to stitching. Now we observe that upper collars, both sides of coat and front upper portions of pant are of yellowish colour and the same do not at all match with white colour of the cloth..."

Without quoting the order in extenso, it suffices to notice that the Forum came to the firm conclusion that the yellow patches on the white suit appear to be due to defective dry-cleaning or its pressing system, for which the respondent could not be made to suffer. This finding of the District Forum, which is based on their particular visual and close scrutiny of the damaged garments, has indeed not been assailed at all on behalf of the appellant. We also find not the least reason to differ there from.

IT seems common ground that the original bill issued to the customer on the 10th February, 1990 was delivered to the appellant on the 15th February, 1990 before the taking over the garments by the respondent, and the same was retained by him in his custody. This was expressly so stated in para 4 of the complaint and not denied in reply and even in the arguments before us. This does not seem to be in dispute that after the 15th February, 1990, both the original bill and its carbon copy remained in the custody of the appellant, till they were produced before the District Forum. The issue of interpolation in the original or its carbon copy is to be viewed in this context. The District Forum in arriving at its conclusion with regard to the interpolation in the original bill, have first noticed the firm stand of the respondent that when the same was first delivered to him on the 10th February, 1990, it bore no writing in Hindi, whatsoever, and this addition has been made later on to create a false defence, whilst it remained in the custody of the appellant. They further noticed rightly that the bill was in English writing altogether and it is only the disputed addition, which is in the Hindi script. Not only that, they have observed that this interpolation is not in the natural course of events, since it occurs in- between two lines of English writing. They were particularly and rightly influenced by the fact that the carbon copy of the original bill bore the imprint of the English writing but did not mysteriously have the Hindi writing therein. On a deeper consideration, we are ourselves inclined to affirm the aforesaid findings of the District Forum. A look at the original bill would indicate that the writing in Hindi therein is typical of an interpolation subsequently made in a document. There was obviously vacant space on the bill, but the Hindi writing interpolation has been squeezed in-between two lines of English and defacing a part thereof. Equally, the carbon copy of the bill hardly bears any imprint of the Hindi writing interpolated in the original. We regret our inability to agree with the somewhat ingenious arguments of Mr. Malik, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and whilst rejecting the same, we affirm the finding of the District Forum herein.

LASTLY, it deserves notice that the appellant seems to have taken up the somewhat specious plea that herein the damage was done to the suit during its tailoring. The unchallenged case of the respondent was that he had paid Rs. 775/- to the tailor for the stitching of the suit. In this context it would seem strange that if the fault was that of the tailor, why the respondent should wish to absolve him thereof, and instead launch on an altogether false accusation against the dry-cleaner. Mr. Jaswant Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, was right in his submission that the very defence of the appellant was somewhat farcical and, in any case, has been completely dislodged on the record.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we are unable to find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant, however, must now proceed to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,100/- to the respondent within one month from today. failing which, the District FORum, as observed already in their order, may proceed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to impose the necessary penalty, even of imprisonment. Appeal dismissed.