Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/279/2016

Nike India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashwani Kumar Kapur - Opp.Party(s)

Satyaveer Singh

07 Oct 2016

ORDER

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	279 of 2016
Date of Institution	05.10.2016
Date of Decision	07.10.2016

 

Nike India Private Limited, Ground & 1st Floor, Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Park, CV Raman Nagar, Bangalore – 560093.

                     …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

                           Versus

1. Ashwani Kumar Kapur, H.No.1289, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh.

              …..Respondent No.1/complainant.

2. M/s SSIPL Retail Limited, 115, 1st Floor, Ellante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

            ..Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1.

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                             MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for the appellant/ Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.08.2016, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.63 of 2016 against the Opposite Parties with the following directions :-

“11.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]  To refund Rs.7,995.07/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the Shoes. 

[b]  To pay Rs.4,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[C] To pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation;

12.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.”

2.           The facts, in brief, are that the  complainant purchased Nike Shoes from Opposite Party No.1, which was manufactured by Opposite Party No.2, for the sum of Rs.7995.07 vide invoice dated 30.08.2015 (Annexure C-1), with a warranty of six months. It was stated that the upper part of the said shoes had torn with some cracks within three months of its purchase. For rectification of the said defect, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 on 07.12.2015, who issued Settlement Slip (Annexure C-2) and gave an assurance to repair or replace the shoes, as the case may be, within a week. After waiting for 10 days, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and it asked to wait for one week more. Thereafter, the complainant called Opposite Party No.1, 3 to 4 times and also sent an email dated 31.12.2015 to the Opposite Parties but nothing was done, despite receipt of email. Therefore, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.           In its written statement, Opposite Party No.2 admitted regarding the purchase of shoes by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 on 30.08.2015 and reported the issue with the shoes to Opposite Party No.1 on 07.12.2015 vide slip No.57766. It was further stated that upon conducting an investigation into the defects in the shoes, it was found that there was damage on the upper part of the mesh and the same was not a manufacturing defect but a normal wear and tear. Photograph of the said shoes is annexed as Annexure A. It was further stated that the complainant was duly informed that there was no manufacturing defect found in the said shoes (Annexure C) and as per Consumer Care Policy of the replying Opposite Party, only those products which are found to have manufacturing defect are eligible for replacement and since there was no manufacturing defect found, so, the replying Opposite Party could not replace the shoes. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.           After issuance of notice to Opposite Party No.1, Sh. Rahul, RE/Representative appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and made an endorsement on 26.05.2016 on the order sheet that ‘Opposite Party No.1 wants to adopt the reply filed by Opposite Party No.2.’

5.           The complainant filed replication to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2, wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2. 

6.           The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.           After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint against the Opposite Parties, as stated above. 

8.           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

9.           We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.         The appellant/Opposite Party No.2, while filing the appeal, has submitted that  the Forum has erred in not considering that the Consumer Care Policy of the appellant clearly stated that a product could be replaced within 6 months of its purchase only if there is a manufacturing defect and in the present case, respondent No.1/complainant failed to prove that the shoes, in issue, has suffered from any manufacturing defect. The appellant further stated that the impugned order passed by the Forum is arbitrary and without any reasons and actually based on an assumption and not on any documentary evidence. The appellant further requested to set aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

11.         After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

12.         The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. Annexure C-1 is a copy of retail invoice dated 30.08.2015. From this document, it is proved that the complainant purchased Nike shoes from Opposite Party No.1 in the sum of Rs.7995.07 with a warranty of six months. Annexure C-2 is a copy of Customer’s Claim “Settlement Slip”. From this document, it is proved that upper part of the shoes of the complainant had torn with some cracks, due to which, he approached Opposite Party No.1 to rectify the defect in the same. Annexure C-3 is a copy of an email dated 31.12.2015, which was sent by the complainant to company’s customer care and requested for replacement of the shoes, being genuine problem. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 had placed on record Annexure A i.e. photographs of the shoes alongwith its written statement to prove that there was not a manufacturing defect but was the result of normal wear and tear. A bare perusal of the photographs annexed by Opposite Party No.2 clearly reveals that there was damage on the upper part of the mesh. Opposite Party No.2 also placed on record copy of email dated 13.01.2016, which was written to the complainant, and informed that they were unable to determine any manufacturing defect in the product. Opposite Party No.2 also placed on record Nike India Customer Care Policy (Annexure E) and the relevant portion with regard to ‘manufacturing defects’ reads thus :-

“Manufacturing Defects: - Any and all defects in production pertaining to materials and/or workmanship. Such defects include issues related to bonding, stitching, material/ components failure, cosmetics and workmanship. This guarantee applies when the product is used under normal conditions and for the purpose in which the product was designed. This does not apply to normal wear and tear or damage related to alteration, accident, misuse, improper care or negligence.”

After going through the documents placed on record by the complainant and Opposite Party No.2, before the Forum, we are of the view that the mere objection taken by the appellant that respondent No.1/complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the shoes, has no force, at all because the shoes, which was purchased by the complainant, is not a local made company shoes but shoes which were manufactured by ‘Nike India Private Limited’ (appellant/Opposite Party No.2), purchased from the showroom of Opposite Party No.1 at Elante Mall, which is the one of the best mall in Chandigarh, where all the branded company showrooms are selling their products. If the complainant purchased the local made company shoes, then it is believable, that defects may arise in the shoes within three months of its purchase. But in the present case, the complainant purchased ‘Nike’ shoes, which is one of the top branded name, not only in India but also in the world. If such like top branded shoes like Nike tears on the upper side within three months of its purchase then why the complainant need to purchase Nike shoes, after payment of hefty amount i.e. Rs.7995.07 ? Even if we believe the contention of the appellant that tearing of the shoes on the upper side, within a period of 3 months of its purchase, is not a manufacturing defect but due to only normal wear and tear then no customer could ever believe the renowned Company like Nike, and he could very well purchase local made shoes at the nominal price of about Rs.1000/-. It may be stated here that if the customer purchased the shoes like Nike, he/she imposes faith upon the Company that the said shoes will not create any problems in the next 1 year, but in the present case, the said problem in the shoes of the complainant occurred within three months of its purchase, certainly due to some manufacturing defect or poor quality of material and non-replacement of the shoes by the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in service on their part. So, after going through the record of the case, we are of the view that the Forum has rightly observed in para No.10 of the impugned order. The relevant portion of the said para reads thus:-

“ x xxxxxxx

After going through the afore extracted condition, it is clear that such an authentic warranty is being given because of the good quality of the shoes and of course, as per the said warranty condition, the life of the shoes in question is certainly more than what the Complainant actually could enjoy. Moreover, as per the allegations of the Opposite Parties, onus is upon them only to prove the alteration, accident, misuse, improper care or negligence, which they failed to discharge. Mere bald assertions regarding the misuse of the product in question cannot be believed as such. Thus, the act of the Opposite Parties in not replacing the defective Shoes tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.”

13.         Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and granted relief to the complainant, as stated above.  Hence, the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.2, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.

15.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

07.10.2016                                             Sd/-   

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                                             (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

rb