Haryana

Ambala

CC/440/2016

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

AERO CLUB - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

24 Jul 2017

ORDER

Consumer Complaint No.: 440 of 2016

Date of Institution: 13.12.2016

Date of Decision: 24.07.2017

 

Ashok Kumar, S/o Dharam Pal, R/o Village Shaibpur, Tehsil & Distt. Ambala (Haryana)

                                                                                         ...................Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Aero Club, Ambala (Woodland Shoe) Near NH-1, (Kuldeep Nagar) G.T. Road Ambala Cantt. (Through its Proprietor)  
2. Woodland India Office, 2168 Gurudwara Road, Opp Post Office, New Delhi-110005 (Through its G.M.)

                                                                                ...................Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:    SHRI D. N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

        SHRI PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:    Complainant in person.

                    OPs already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

PER ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

1.                  Sh. Ashok Kumar, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Aero Club Woodland Store and another/Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the “OPs”). Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a pair of Men Shoes of Woodland brand from OP No.1 vide retail invoice No.000796 dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure C-1) for a consideration of Rs.2460/- including taxes. It is averred by the complainant that on 24.11.2016, the aforesaid pair of shoes got damaged/broken during a Marriage Event. The complainant further avers that thereafter on 28.11.2016, the complainant approached OP No.1 against the damaged shoes and after checking, the OP No.1 agreed that the shoes had been damaged due to manufacturing defect and that there was no fault on the part of complainant. But when the complainant asked for replacement of the said pair of damaged shoes, the OP No.1 told the complainant that the above said pair of shoes cannot be replaced but can only be repaired by the Company Head office/manufacturing plant. The OP No.1 declined to honour complainant’ claim for replacement despite repeated requests.
2.                  Despite being duly served with Notice/summons sent through Registered Post by this Forum on dated 27.12.2016 to appear on 20.03.2017 and to substantiate their case, if any, none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and OP No.2. The position remains the same at this fag end of proceedings, even after a lapse of seven months of serving summons.
3.                  We have heard the complainant and have also perused the case file.
4.                  The footwear replacement policy of Woodland India Ltd. entails that the replacement guarantee given by the company is against manufacturing defect only and the warranty period is 90 days from the date of purchase.
5.                  A “manufacturing defect” is a problem that becomes part of the product when it is made. The two most common causes of manufacturing defects are poor-quality materials and carelessness in putting the product together, or shoddy workmanship. Moreover, according to Section 2(1)(f) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. Coming back to the facts of the present case; within hardly a week of its purchase, the footwear got damaged. It gives impression that the material used in the making of said footwear by OP No.2 was sub-standard. Our observation also gains impetus from the case of Sajjan Kumar Mittal vs. Ram Prakash (2007) wherein Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that if the shoe after use of two months gets damaged and it is not usable at all then the only inference that can be raised is that there was some manufacturing or inherent defect in the shoes.
6.                  Since the complainant purchased the footwear on 18.11.2016 and the fact that it got damaged/ torn on 24.11.2016 i.e. within a week of its use, it is prima facie clear that goods were well within warranty period at the relevant time. Now, looking into ‘deficiency in service’ aspect, the OP No.1, who is the authorised dealer of Woodland Company, acts in a manner which subverts his position as a trader. The OP No.1 turned down complainant’ request for replacement even though the goods in question were well within warranty period and possessed manufacturing defect as stated above. The fact that OP No.1 instead offered to get the shoes repaired would not offer it much assistance for the simple reason that the span of aforesaid pair of shoes was so short which would, in ordinary circumstances, compel a consumer to ask for nothing short of replacement. Repair can only help in cases of normal wear and tear after prolonged use. Thus, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2.
7.                  The allegations made by complainant remained unrebutted because opposite parties (Woodland and its retail shop) did not choose to contest the claim despite registered notices. We find no reason but to believe the allegations made by the complainant; for he has already filed the complaint before this Forum while the aforesaid warranty period was subsisting.
8.                  In view of the above discussion, we arrive at a conclusion that the goods supplied by the OPs to the Complainant suffers from manufacturing defect and that OP Nos.1 and 2 are guilty of deficiency in service.
9.                  For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed with cost against all Opposite Parties and the OPs are hereby jointly and severally directed to comply with the following direction within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order:-

1. To replace the defective pair of shoes with a new one or in the alternative refund the cost thereof to the complainant within the stipulated time, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization; and
2. To pay compensation of Rs.1000/- towards harassment; and
3. To shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses.

 

Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to the record room.

Announced on: 24.07.2017

 

PUSHPENDER KUMAR                ANAMIKA GUPTA                          D.N. ARORA

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

ANAMIKA GUPTA

         MEMBER