CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

                           GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

                     Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

                                       (Behind Qutub Hotel)

                                        New Delhi – 110016

      Case No:22/2021

Aditya Verma

972/8 Govindpuri

Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.                                …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

1. AERO Club (Woodland Head Office)110025

2168 Gurudwara Road

Opp. Post Office, New Delhi-110005.

2. AERO Club (Woodland Store)

17A/40, Main Ajmal Khan Road

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110006.        …..RESPONDENTS

          Date of Institution-22.01.21

          Date of Order- 13.09.2024

  O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1.  The complaint pertains to defective goods sold to the complainant.

2. Brief facts as stated in complaint are that on 12.12.2019, the complainant went into the OP-2 store and purchased two jackets on assurance of quality by the salesman of OP-2 store.  The jackets were manufactured by OP-1.  The complainant paid Rs.7,194/- from his Airtel Wallet for the jacket. The complainant purchased one jacket for his own use and one for his brother.

3. The gifted jacket, to the dismay of the complainant, started to rip-off at few places after being used only on 2-3 occasions.  The complainant alleges substandard quality and manufacturing defect in the said jacket.

4. On 14.02.2020, the complainant requested the store manager to either get the jacket replaced or refund the amount paid.  It is alleged that the store manager denied the refund but undertook to repair the jacket by sending it to OP-1. A repair slip no.330 was issued with the promised date of delivery given as 28.02.2020.  The receipt also mentioned that the jacket was in warranty.

5. On 17.3.2020, the complainant contacted the store about the repair status of the jacket.  He was informed that no repair was done by OP-1.  Moreover, the only repair that can be undertaken would be by sewing patches on the numerous spots from where the jacket was ripped-off.  The complainant opposed this repair to be undertaken by OPs.

6. Several emails were exchanged between the parties.  But the OP failed to refund the amount paid or replace the jacket.  The complainant prays for refund of Rs.3,597/- and award of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation costs and suitable compensation towards mental agony.

7. Notice was issued to OP.  The AR of OP, Mr. Anil Kumar, appeared but failed to file reply within time.  OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.07.2022.

8. The complainant filed the evidence in form of affidavit and exhibited the following:

1. Copy of bill and payment receipt is exhibited as EX.CW-1/1.
2. Copy of pictures of jacket purchased is exhibited as EX.CW-1/2.
3. Copy of repair slip by OP-1is exhibited as EX.CW-1/3.
4. Copy of emails is exhibited as EX.CW-1/4 & 1/5
5. Copy of legal notice, postal receipts and delivery report are exhibited as EX.CW-1/6.

9. The Commission has considered the documents on record. The invoice dated 12.12.2019 shows that two jackets were purchased for Rs.3597/-each.  The receipt for repair dated 28.02.2020 shows that the garment is within warranty.  The photographs annexed shows that the jacket is ripped at seams in few places and cotton is seen to be coming out. 

10. There were several email communications between the parties.  In an email dated 14.04.2020 to OP-1, the complainant sought redressal from OP-1, the manufacturer.  OP-1 vide email dated 15.04.2020 agreed to check the dispute and revert.  The complainant sent a reminder email on 02.07.2020.  OP-1 vide email dated 03.07.2020 once again agreed to check and revert.  The complainant sent a reminder email on 25.07.2020.  OP-1 on the same day requested the complainant to contact the concerned store. The complainant vide email dated 04.08.2020 replied that the concerned store wanted to attach patches over the torn area which is not acceptable.  OP-1 replied on the same day that they are unable to provide further assistance.

11. From the sequence of events, it is evident that the complainant purchased two jackets, one of which began to stretch and tear at seams within the warranty period. The email correspondence between the parties shows that the OPs were willing to sew patches over the new jacket to cover up the defects. It is also understandable that the complainant would not want to wear a jacket with patches.

12. Hence, we find OPs guilty of selling defective product. We hold OP-1 and OP-2 jointly and severally liable and direct them to refund Rs.3,597/- with 9% interest from date of purchase till realization. We also direct OPs to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical inconveniences  inclusive of litigation costs.

13. Order be uploaded within 30 days and file be consigned to record room.