5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Aug 1, 2026 03:46 PM IST
The Hyderabad Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III has held a dry cleaner guilty of deficiency in service for returning a customer’s pure silk saree with black stains after retaining it for nearly three weeks beyond the promised delivery date. The commission directed the dry cleaner to return the saree to the man and pay Rs 6,000 as compensation for deficiency in service.
Rejecting the dry cleaner’s reliance on disclaimer clauses printed on the receipt, the bench of president Ram Gopal Reddy, along with members J Shyamala and D Madhavi Latha, held that standard printed conditions on the receipt cannot absolve a service provider of liability for negligent handling of customers’ goods.
“A consumer who entrusts an expensive silk saree to a professional dry cleaner legitimately expects the article to be returned without damage. Failure to do so amounts to deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,” the July 15 order stated.
Silk saree returned with ‘black stains’
The 59-year-old businessman claimed that on December 30, 2024, he entrusted several garments, including a pure silk saree, to the dry cleaner for washing and dry cleaning. He specifically informed the service provider that the saree was delicate and required special care. After being assured that it would be handled with due care, he left the garments for cleaning.
The man alleged that the dry cleaner charged a higher amount and sought additional time to clean the silk saree, to which he agreed. The garments were to be returned on January 20, 2025, but the service provider repeatedly delayed delivery, claiming the saree required extra care.
When the garments were finally returned on February 10, 2025, the complainant alleged that while the other clothes had been properly cleaned, the silk saree had multiple black stains, which he alleged were caused by negligent handling during the dry-cleaning process.
The man claimed that when he sought compensation, the dry cleaner denied responsibility, relied on the disclaimer printed on the receipt, and allegedly threatened him with consequences if he pursued the matter. After the service provider failed to respond to his legal notice seeking Rs 15,000 as the value of the damaged silk saree, he approached the commission. The complainant was represented by advocate Avinash Nayakwadi.
Story continues below this ad
Dry cleaner’s defence
The dry cleaner, represented by advocate N Malathi Naidu, denied that the complainant had informed that the saree required special handling. The establishment argued that before accepting the garments, it had explained the terms printed on the receipt stating that it would not be responsible for damage to old materials, imported fabrics, colours, zari or similar items.
It further claimed that the complainant had not paid the Rs 600 dry-cleaning charge for the silk saree and that the black stains were already present when the saree was handed over. According to the dry cleaner, it made its best efforts to remove the stains, but was unsuccessful because the saree was delicate and could not be handled roughly.
‘Service provider responsible’
Pointing out that the prolonged retention of the saree, coupled with its return in a damaged condition, supports the complainant’s version, the commission added, “The admission that attempts were made to remove the stains itself indicates that the opposite party undertook professional treatment of the saree and therefore became responsible to exercise due care.”
Referring to the receipt and its terms, the commission said that when a service provider accepts goods for payment, it has a duty to handle them with the reasonable care and skill that one expects from a professional.
Story continues below this ad
“Any contractual clause attempting to exclude liability for negligence must be strictly construed. Consumer jurisprudence consistently holds that standard printed conditions cannot absolve a service provider from the consequences of negligent handling of goods entrusted by consumers,” it added.
Allowing the complaint, the commission directed the service provider to pay Rs 4,000 towards the cost and compensation and to return the saree to the man and also directed it to pay Rs 2,000 towards costs of litigation within 45 days.
Significance of ruling
This ruling highlights that service providers cannot escape liability for negligence by relying on standard disclaimer clauses or printed terms and conditions and can be held liable for deficiency in service if they fail to exercise due care while handling consumers’ goods.
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Telangana: 1800-4250-0333) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
