DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 346 of 2018
Date of institution: 10.04.2018
Date of Decision: 02.03.2021
Sanjeev Singla, aged about 50 years, son of Sh. Parshotam Singla, resident of House No.3311, Sector 32 D, Chandigarh
…….Complainant
Versus
- Adi Sports India Private Limited, Ground Floor-001, FF 40 to 44, Cosmo Plaza Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its authorized signatory.
- Addidas India Marketing Pvt. Limited, Corporate Office at Plot No.53, Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon 122002, through its authorized signatory.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Shri Kanwaljeet Singh, Member
Present: Sh. Sanjeev Singla, complainant in person
Sh.Manoj Lakhotia, counsel for OPs
Order dictated by :- Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Member, Nawanshahar at Mohali
Order
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has alleged in this complaint that complainant had purchased a pair of sports shoes from OP No.1 for an amont of Rs.3200/- on 15.8.2016. The product was on 60% discount on MRP, which was of Rs.6999/- inclusive of all taxes. The OP after discounting the MRP by 60% added VAT @ 14.30% amounting to Rs.400.34 and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.3200/- as a cost for the products. In the first week of November, 2016, the complainant had found the manufacturing defect in the product. While selling product the OP gave three months warranty. The product has been made for most inferior quality as holes had cropped up on the upper part of the shoes. The complainant visited the shop of OP for replacement of the same but the OP No.1 put off the matter on the pretext that a complaint in this regard shall be sent to the OP No.2 and the complainant will be informed about the date of replacement through mobile phone call on his phone. Due to unfair trade practice and non replacement of the product within warranty period. OPs have caused the lot of mental tensions and harassement, so the complainant is entitled to replace the pair of shoes (product) of same model, to refund of Rs.400/- which was charged from the complainant on account of overcharge of taxes, with interest @ 9% per annum from 15.8.2016 till its realization, further OPs be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation along with Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has neither purchased any goods from the answering O.Ps. nor hired any services for consideration or otherwise from the answering OPs; that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant; that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, it is stated that the bill dated 15.8.2016 as alleged by the complainant is totally fadded and not legible. In this way, the OPs have not sold the product in question to the complainant and never given any guarantee thereon for three months nor the complainant has ever visited the OPs at any point of time for replacement of shoes as alleged in the complaint. So, in the absence of a valid and legible bill, the OPs denied the factum of selling of the subject product of the complainant. There is no guarantee card on the file. Even, the OPs denied the fact that the complainant sent complaint to the OPs through email. It is further alleged that the entire allegations leveled by the complainant are false, frivolous and baseless. The answering O.Ps. crave leave of this Commission to refer and rely upon submissions made hereinabove which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Rest of the allegations made by the complainant are denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
3. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/1 & Ex.CW1/2 along with documents from Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and similarly OPs tendered in evidence of affidavit which is Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the O.Ps. and have gone through the record file, carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. During the arguments, the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties are similar to their respective pleadings. So, no need to reiterate the same. Now come to major point of controversy whether the complainant is liable for relief as prayed in this complaint. We observed from the record file that the invoice of the article did not produced by the complainant. While the O.Ps, denied this fact that the selling of pair of sport shoes to the complainant on 15.8.2016 for a sum of Rs.3200/-. Complainant is neither produced any rebuttal evidence nor produced the original invoice of the shoes purchased from OP1. Moreover, as per Ex.C2 i.e. the mail dated 7.4.2017 sent by the OP to the complainant in which they mentioned that the product was purchased under no return or exchange policy and the same is mentioned in the invoice. Hence, we regret that we unable to proceed further to your claim. Moreover, the complainant is miserably failed to produce the original article (shoes in question) before this Commission. Without the checking of original article how can we assume that there is any manufacturing defect with naked eyes?.
6. Complainant also made a correspondence to the OPs regarding the article having problem and suffering from manufacturing defect.
7. We observe that the complainant is neither produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence nor produced any expert report regarding any manufacturing defect exist in the article in question i.e. pair of shoes. From this angle complainant miserably failed to prove his case. It is duty of the complainant to prove his case on his own legs with documentary evidence. It is settled principal of law that the documentary evidence is the best evidence but in the present case in hand, complainant has not brought any sufficient evidence to prove his case.
8. Resultantly, from the facts and circumstances of the present case, we dismiss the complaint without any cost. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties as free of cost. File be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.
Announced
March 02, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Kanwaljeet Singh)
Member
