Mumbai: The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Suburban Mumbai, has held Juhu-Tara road based designer retailer Aza Fashion Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide properly fitted custom-made designer dresses to a Vile Parle resident, which costed her over Rs 5.84 lakh for the garments. The commission directed the company to refund the entire amount of Rs 5,84,420 paid by complainant Riddhi Gupta along with Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony caused to her.
According to the complaint, Gupta had approached the Juhu Tara Road showroom of Aza Fashions in February and March 2015 to purchase designer outfits for her brother’s engagement ceremony scheduled in April 2015. Since the readymade dresses available at the showroom did not fit her body profile, the showroom representatives allegedly persuaded her to place a special custom-made order directly through the designers by paying additional charges. She subsequently ordered seven designer dresses after the showroom staff took her measurements and assured proper fittings and trial sessions.
However, Gupta alleged that despite repeated visits to the showroom for fittings and alterations, the dresses were never stitched according to her measurements. She claimed that every alteration resulted either in repetition of the same fitting issues or introduction of fresh defects in different portions of the garments. Frustrated with the repeated errors, she sought cancellation of the order and refund of the money. Though showroom staff allegedly assured her that the amount would be refunded after approval from higher authorities, the refund was never processed, thus, forcing her to issue a legal notice in May 2016 and subsequently approach the consumer commission.
In its defence, Aza Fashion Pvt. Ltd. argued that it was merely a dealer and not the manufacturer of the dresses and therefore could not be held liable. However, the commission rejected this contention, observing that the complainant had placed the order and made payment directly to the company, making it responsible for delivering properly fitted garments.
“The Opposite Parties have not stitched the said seven dresses as per the body profile of the complainant and she had to attend the showroom for measurement and alterations three to four times. Hence, the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service,” the commission observed.
The commission further held that refusal to refund the amount by citing a “non-refundable” clause for custom-made dresses amounted to an unfair trade practice. It noted that despite claiming the dresses were ready for delivery, the company failed to produce any evidence showing that it had attempted to deliver the garments to the complainant between March 2015 and the issuance of the legal notice in May 2016.
The commission also accepted Gupta’s claim that the incident caused her significant mental harassment and disappointment, especially since the dresses were intended for her brother’s engagement ceremony. It therefore awarded Rs 50,000 as compensation towards mental agony suffered by her due to the company’s faulty services.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
