Ludhiana: Boutique owner asked to refund cost of defective dress, fined ₹5k

The complainant, a resident of Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, alleges that dress was torn and was not dry cleaned

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, has directed a local boutique owner to refund ₹22,000, the price of a defective dress supplied to the complainant, and to pay a composite compensation of ₹5,000. The commission said that if the boutique fails to refund the price of the dress, the complainant shall be held entitled for 8% interest per annum on the amount.

Consumer disputes redressal forum observed that if owner fails to refund ₹22,000, she will have to pay interest at 8% per annum (iStock)

The complaint was filed by Reema Pathak, 40, of Sector 38, Chandigarh Road, on August 25. The complainant said that she bought a dress worth ₹22,000 from a boutique owned by Meenakshi Chhabra of Sarabha Nagar on January 8.

The complainant added that the dress was to be delivered after needful altercations. She paid ₹10,000 as advance through united payments interface.

The complaint alleged that the boutique owner delivered the dress in a careless and negligent manner through a worker. The dress was delivered to the complainant’s husband at their filling station on Chandigarh Road. The boutique was paid the balance amount of ₹12,000 from Mukesh, manager of the filling station.

The complainant added that on checking, she found that the dress was torn and it also had stains on it. The complainant said that the altercation was not done properly as well.

According to the complainant, after some days, she visited the boutique to collect the dress but the stains were not removed. The boutique owner assured to remove the stains and admitted her mistake/negligence of not getting the dress dry-cleaned earlier. The complainant said that she then sent a message to the boutique owner to return the cost of the dress.

On April 2, she received a message from the boutique owner for the delivery of the dress in the evening. However, the same was delivered to the complainant the next morning and received by domestic help of the complainant. On checking, the complainant found that a few stains were still there and the dress was torn a ta few places. She sent a legal notice to the boutique owner on April 11, but to no avail.

In its order, the forum observed that by selling a defective product to the complainant, the boutique owner indulged in unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (47) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The forum said that “defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression “defective” shall be construed accordingly.”