Accepting And Paying For Damaged Garments Without Protest, Fault On Consumer's Part, Goa State Commission Allows Appeal Filed By Lakaki Drycleaners

Brief Facts:

Mr Francisco Abel Joao (“Complainant”) entrusted 5 coats and 1 coaty to M/s Lakaki Drycleaners & Art Dyers (“Dry Cleaners”) for dry cleaning, with a payable amount of Rs. 2,350/- for the service. Upon retrieving the dry-cleaned garments, the Complainant was dismayed to find the expensive coats completely damaged. When queried, the Dry Cleaners denied responsibility, claiming the damage existed before dry cleaning. Additionally, the Complainant alleged rude and arrogant behaviour from them. Notably, the damaged coats held sentimental value, having been worn by the Complainant for his wedding. Disappointed by the Dry Cleaners' denial of responsibility and failure to address the grievance, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Goa (“District Commission”).

In response, the Dry Cleaners asserted that the garments were received by an individual named 'Avel' for laundry services, with no complaints noted upon collection. They emphasized the absence of any damage complaints on the bill and the subsequent payment made by the Complainant. They further contested the interpretation of a tax invoice, clarifying it pertained to a three-piece suit purchase, not just a coat.

The District Commission found the Dry Cleaners liable and directed them to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards the damaged garments, Rs. 25,000/- compensation for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- for legal costs. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Commission, the Dry Cleaners filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa (“State Commission”).

Observations by the State Commission:

The State Commission questioned the Complainant's actions upon discovering the damage to his coats. Despite noticing the damage, the Complainant proceeded to pay the bill and collected the garments without raising any objections, leading the State Commission to suggest potential fault on the Complainant's part for accepting and paying for damaged goods without protest.

Furthermore, the State Commission challenged the District Commission's assumption that a mere name discrepancy ('Avel' instead of 'Abel') was indicative of the Dry Cleaners' responsibility for the damage.

The State Commission held that the District Commission hastily concluded the Dry Cleaners' fault based solely on photographs of the damaged garments. The absence of dates on the photos and the lack of evidence demonstrating the condition of the clothes before dry cleaning raised doubts about the validity of the claim.

Additionally, the State Commission highlighted legal errors concerning the presentation of the Power of Attorney (“POA”) by the Complainant. They pointed out that while the POA was in place, it did not grant the authority for the holder to depose in the principal's capacity. The State Commission emphasized that such testimony from the holder could not be accepted as evidence, in line with established legal principles. Moreover, procedural lapses were noted regarding the execution of the POA, as it failed to adhere to the proper procedures required by law.

Ultimately, the State Commission concluded that the Complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service part and presented insufficient evidence to prove the Dry Cleaners' liability. The appeal was allowed.

Case Title: M/s Lakaki Drycleaners & Art Dyers and Others vs Mr Francisco Abel Joao

Case No.: First Appeal No. 16 of 2023

Advocate for the Appellants: Shri Mangirish Angle

Advocate for the Original Complainant/Respondent: Shri Sagar Malkarnekar

Click Here To Read/Download Order