PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 238/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Gyanendra Panda,

S/o-Madhab Chandra Panda,

Permanent R/O, At/PO-Jhaduapada, Ps-Town,

Tahl/Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha

At present R/O At-F/462 Bandharpali, ITPS, PO/Ps-Banharpali,

Tah-Lakhanpur, Dist-Jharsuguda-768234, Odisha

Aadhaar No.7764 1645 3740                                          ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Reliance Trends, Budharaja, Sambalpur,

At/Po/Ps-Ainthapali,

Tah/Dist-Sambalpur.

2. John. Players Company,

Tower-B, 7^th Floor, IBC Knowledge Park, Bannerghtta Main Road,

Bhavani Nagar, S.G. Palyee, Main Road, Bhavani Nagar,

Bengaluru, Karnataka-560029.                            .…....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. M.K. Panda & Associates
2. For the O.P.                        :- Sri. S.K. Patjoshi, Adv.

Date of Filing:19.12.2023,  Date of Hearing :12.03.2024  Date of Judgement : 22.04.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased two numbers of paints having its size 82cm from the OP No. 1 of the OP 2 manufacturing Company on dt. 8.10.2023 and paid Rs. 5,000/- and also on the same day he has purchased some others dress materials for a sum of Rs. 16,020/- manufactured by the OP 2. The paints were defective products i.e inherent manufacturing defects and after use on 15.10.2023, the steaching of the paints are open. On 28.10.2023 the Complainant has reported the matter to the OP No. 1 to which the OP No. 1 told that the tailoring staffs were absent and when they will joine then he will call back and the OP No. 1 had kept the mobile number. After waiting some days when the Complainant not received any telephonic message or call, then again went to the OP NO. 1 and the paints are again steaching by the staffs of the OP No. 1 but the same defect was found after some days. The Complainant had reported the matter several times to the OPs but did not respond or took steps to solve the problem and the OP No. 1 also not provided the address of the OP No. 2 who is the manufacturer of the paints for that reason the Complainant faced a lots of problem to find out the correct address of the OP No. 2 and for which the Complainant served a complain on 08.11.2023 to the OP No. 1, but in vain. Hence the OP No. 1 is liable for his deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Further, as the OP No. 2 is the manufacturer of the paints and sold the lower quality in the market is also liable for his deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice.
2. The OP No. 1 & 2 denied all the allegation of the Complainant and mentioned in their version that the Complainant purchased John player trouser along with other apparels and after few days of using the trouser visited the store wearing the said trouser and reported of stiching issues. The Complainant being well aware of the terms conditions of the return policy, visited the store by wearing the said trouser and also alleging of stiching issue. Being a customer oriented company, the OP, as a special case, asked the Complainant to bring the said trouser another day without wearing it and as agreed by the Complainant get the stiching issue resolved by the tailor. After being fully satisfied by the solution, the Complainant left the store and next day he brought the trouser and got it resolved by the tailor as per his satisfaction. The allegations made by the Complainant are false, malicious and made with a malafide intention to decive and mislead the court  for monetary gain.

3. After going through the records, evidences and submission of parties, it is observed that the Complainant had reported the matter several times to the OPs but did not respond or took steps to solve the problem and the OP No. 1 also not provided the address of the OP No. 2 who is the manufacturer of the paints, for that reason the Complainant faced a lots of problem to find out the correct address of the OP No. 2. So deficiency in service found against the OP NO. 1. Further, as the OP No. 2 is the manufacturer of the paints and sold the lower quality product in the market is also liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly, it is ordered.

                             ORDER

The case is disposed of on contest. The O.P No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- towards cost of the paints with 9% interest from the date 8.10.2023 to the Complainant, Further both OPs are directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- each separately towards negligence, deficiency in service as Compensation and Rs. 5,000/- each separately towards cost & litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 22^th day of April, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.