Date of filing: 29-06-2012.
Date of disposal: 09-11-2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Friday, the 9th day of November, 2012
C.C.No.109 of 2012
Between:
D. Ravi Kumar, S/o Venkata Ratnam, Medical Representative, R/o.D.No.4-14- 86/7/1, 2nd Lane, Anjaneyapet, Koritepadu, Guntur – 7.
... Complainant
And
1. Aero Club Woodland Stores, Rep: by Shop Manager, R/o.D.No.26-27-73, Gandhi Nagar, Opp: Hotel Ilapuram, Vijayawada – 520003.
2. M/s Capital Foot Wear India, Rep: by its Manager, F-99-100, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun.
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before for final hearing on 29-10-2012 in the presence of Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for complainant, Sri Umesh Kshirsagar, Area Sales Manager for the opposite parties, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum doth order the following:
ORDER:
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite party to replace the shoe pair, award Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and hardship and for costs and other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant purchased a leather shoe pair with item namely “G4305 Camel 39 Footwear” from the 1st opposite party shop on 26.10.2010 for Rs.2,395/- with valid purchase bill NO.2783 which is manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and that the opposite parties assured that the shoe is fit for use and no problem will arise by using the shoe and having believed the same, the complainant purchased the same. The complainant used the shoe immediately after purchase and found there is a defect in manufacturing and the base is not correctly fitted in the process and on 20.1.2011 the complainant wear the shoe to attend his regular representative work, but due to defect in the basement, his right leg slipped and his ankle was sprained and he took bed rest for 10 days by taking physiotherapy treatment and spent Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses and treatment. The complainant got issued a letter to 1st opposite party on 24.2.2011 demanding to pay compensation and for replacement of shoe, but there is no response. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party. The opposite parties filed version denying the material allegations of complaint and stated that the complainant had purchased pair of shoes on 25.2.2010 and thereafter he had approached the opposite party after a gap of three months alleging some defect and the said shoe was replaced after sending the same to head quarter for their reappraisal. It is further submitted that again in the month of October, 2010 the complainant complained of some defect and on his demand, it was again replaced for 2nd time and that after three months again, he is making a very strange demand for replacement. It is further submitted that the complainant has not mentioned about the earlier replacements and the alleged cause of action is not correct and finally prays to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. The Area Sales Manager of opposite party filed affidavit, but not documents were marked.
4. Heard both sides and perused record.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:
I) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling the defective shoe pair to complainant?
II) If so the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
Point No.1:
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), it is the case of complainant that he purchased the subject shoe pair from the 1st opposite party on 26.10.2010 for Rs.2,395/- under Ex.A3 bill believing the version of 1st opposite party. But after using the same, he found some defect in the shoe as the base was not fitted and on 20.1.2011 he slipped due to the same and his right leg ankle was sprained and he took bed rest for about 10 days and spent Rs.10,000/- towards medicines and treatment. On the other hand, the contention of opposite party is that originally the complainant purchased the shoe pair on 25.2.2010, but not on 26.10.2010 as alleged in the complaint and that the shoe pair was replaced twice on the demand of complainant within two or three months and that the complainant has suppressed the material facts and filed the complaint to get unlawful gain.
7. As seen from the record, it is evident that the complainant has fild only two documents i.e., purchase bill dt.26.10.2010 and letter along with acknowledgement of opposite party to prove his case. But after filing the version of opposite parties to the effect that he has purchased the shoe pair on 25.2.2010 and the same was replaced, the complainant through his affidavit got marked the said bill dt.25.2.2010 where under he purchased the shoe pair and also the another bill dt.26.5.2010 where under the shoe was replaced, as Ex.A1 and A2. On careful perusal of Ex.A1, it is evident that the complainant purchased a shoe pair on 25.2.2010 from 1st opposite party vide bill No.8994 for Rs.1,795/-. Ex.A2 clearly reveals that the shoe was replaced to complainant without any charge as the bill indicates the net payable Rs.0.00. Further Ex.A3 reveals that it is not a purchase bill and the bill indicates the net payable amount is Rs.600/-. In this regard, it is the contention of the opposite parties that they have replaced the earlier shoe pair with item “G 4035 Camel 39 Footwear”, which worth Rs.2,395/- and after deducting the earlier shoe rate of Rs.1,795/-, the complainant has paid balance of Rs.600/-. So, considering the above circumstances, it is clear that the complainant has suppressed the material facts i.e., date of purchase of item and it seems that he has not approached the court with clean hands. Further the cause of action mentioned in the complaint is also not correct as the cause of action arose on 25.2.2010. Further as the opposite parties replaced the shoe pair twice on the demand of complainant in view of good relationship with customers, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards complainant. Further the complainant has not filed any documents to show the alleged expenditure incurred for treatment and medicine. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
Point No.2:
8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Type written by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 9th day of November, 2012.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
On behalf of the complainant: On behalf of opposite parties:
D. Ravi Kumar Area Sales Manager of Ops
(by affidavit) - PW-1 (by affidavit) - DW-1.
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 photocopy of retail invoice.
Ex.A2 26.05.2010 photocopy of retail invoice.
Ex.A3 26.10.2010 Original copy of retail invoice.
Ex.A4 24.02.2011 copy of legal notice got issued by the complainant to OP.
Ex.A5 postal acknowledgement.
On behalf of opposite parties: NIL
PRESIDENT
