DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 324 of 22.8.2019

                                      Decided on: 1.8.2024

Rai Varinder Singh aged 37 years s/o S.Gurmahinder Singh, r/o village Suhagheri, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib(Aadhar card No.25928686 4870)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Aero Club, Patiala-2, Omaxe Mall, Shop No.GF-15, Omaxe Mall, Opposite Kali Mata Mandir, Patiala.
2. Woodland India : 2168,Gurudwara Road, Opposite Post Office, New Delhi thro0ugh its Chairman/M.D.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh.Pushvinder Singh, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.Pargat Singh, AR for the complainant.

                                      Sh.Vipin Sharma, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                                PUSHVINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Rai Varinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Aero Club and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant purchased shoes of woodland company having Model No.FWR Men Shoe GC0549108Y15 Khaki 43 vide bill No.201803N057C02618 dated 23.9.2018 for Rs.2157/-from OP No.1 with the limited warranty/guarantee of five years.
3. It is averred that in the month of June,2019 the shoes in question cracked from one side regarding complaint was made through email ID:
4. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version having contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the complainant has no right to file the instant complaint and also that there is warranty of only 90 days of the products manufactured by the company.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the pair of shoe from the OPs on 23.9.2018 for an amount of Rs.2157/-.The OPs denied all other allegations made in the complaint and have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. To prove the case, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents,Ex.C1 copy of invoice,Ex.C2 copy of warranty document and closed the evidence.
7. The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Karanpreet Singh, RSM, who is present in person and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. As per the claim of complainant he purchased shoes of woodland company on 23.9.2018 vide bill No. 201803N057C02618 dated 23.9.2018 for Rs.2157/-.OP No.1 gave warranty/guarantee for five years but in June/2019 the shoes cracked and then complainant gave intimation  to OPs through e-mail and also called telephonically to their customer care and they assured to replace the shoes. The OPs have denied all allegations of the complainant except the purchase of shoes of complainant. So admittedly a pair of shoes was purchased by complainant from OP No.1 vide bill No. 201803N57C02618 dated 23.9.2018, copy of which has been proved as Ex.C1. The complainant has alleged that the OP No.1 gave warranty/guarantee for five years and in this regard the complainant has produced a warranty clause down loaded from the site of Amazon as Ex.C2 but from perusal of the same it does not relate to the shoes in question. So far as the copy of bill produced by the complainant Ex.C1 is concerned it does not bear any warranty/guarantee clause.
10. On the other hand OPs have alleged that they always give warranty/guarantee for 90 days for the shoes and in this regard OPs have produced original bills of shoes sold by them to different persons as Exs.OP1 to OP12 and at the back of these bills there is  specific clause regarding warranty of foot bears and leather accessories (bags/belt/wallet) and warranty of 90 days is mentioned from the date of purchase against manufacturing defect only.
11. We find it was for the complainant to prove that OP No.1 gave warranty/guarantee for five years as alleged by him but the complainant has failed to produce the same. The complainant has also alleged that he informed the OPs through e-mail but no copy of such email has been produced on the file. The complainant has also failed to produce the shoe before this Commission during the proceedings to prove that the shoe was damaged in any way.Accordingly we find that the complainant has failed to prove his allegations. The complainant admittedly used the shoes for about nine months and has failed to prove any guarantee/warranty given by the OPs. As such the OPs cannot be directed to replace the shoes and they also can not be directed to return the price money of the shoes as claimed by the complainant. Accordingly we find no ground and the complaint is dismissed accordingly. 
12.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           PUSHVINDER SINGH

                                              Member                          President