A consumer disputes redressal commission in Punjab has directed a dry-cleaning firm to pay Rs 63,494 to a customer after damaging a branded jacket imported from Canada and failing to honor a commitment to refund its cost.
The ruling requires the service provider to refund Rs 53,494—the Indian currency equivalent of the jacket’s purchase price of 795 Canadian dollars—along with Rs 10,000 in compensation for legal expenses and mental harassment.
Compensation Mandate And Interest Penalty
The bench, comprising President S.K. Aggarwal and commission members Paramjeet Kaur and Lt. Col. Jasbir Singh Bath, determined that refusing to remit the agreed value after causing damage amounted to a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
The commission stipulated that the total sum must be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the certified order copy. Should the firm fail to pay within the stipulated window, an annual interest rate of six percent will apply to the principal amount of Rs 53,494 from the end of the deadline until realization.
Dispute Over Damaged Garment
According to the complaint, the owner submitted a sweater and a branded jacket to the dry-cleaning shop. On the scheduled collection date, store staff informed the customer that the clothing was still wet and promised to deliver the items directly to his residence.
When no delivery took place, the customer revisited the outlet and found the jacket stained, damp, and ruined. Upon his refusal to accept the damaged coat, store representatives acknowledged their error and agreed to refund the equivalent of 795 Canadian dollars within seven days.
Failure To File Legal Response
After the business failed to issue the refund despite receiving a formal legal notice, the customer filed a complaint with the consumer commission. The panel determined the rupee value of 795 Canadian dollars by accessing current internet exchange rate data, which yielded Rs 53,493.96, subsequently rounded to Rs 53,494.
The commission noted in its proceedings that legal representation for the dry-cleaning business appeared on Oct. 14, 2025. However, the firm failed to submit a written defense within the statutory timeframe, leading the panel to strike off its right to file a response. The opposition subsequently stopped attending hearings, leaving the commission to decide the case based on the evidence submitted by the complainant.
