Haryana

Panchkula

CC/222/2021

NARINDER KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASICS/LEADS/CHANDIGARH/ELANTE. - Opp.Party(s)

PRIYA BAJAJ GROVER & ANIL KALIRAMAN

08 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	222 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	22.04.2021
Date of Decision	:	08.04.2022

 

 

Narinder Kumar s/o Sh. Jasmer Singh, resident of House No.05, Government Quarters, Sector-20, Panchkula (Near Police Station, Sector-20, Panchkula)

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     ASICS/LEEDS/CHANDIGARH/ELANTE, Unit No.116, First Floor,    Elante Mall, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.

2.     ASICS India Pvt. Ltd. 103, C1, First Floor, Time Tower, Sector-28,      Main MG Road, Gurugram-122002 through its authorized         signatory.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Anil Kaliraman, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.    

                        OP No.1 already ex parte vide order dated 11.10.2021.

                        OP No.2 given up vide order dated 10.08.2021.

ORDER

(Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant intending to purchase sports shoes visited the OP No.1, where the officials of the OP No.1 informed that sports shoes manufactured by the OP No.2 were having best results and also disclosed that there was one year warranty on the said shoes. Believing on the version of the OP No.1, the complainant agreed to purchase the pair of ASICS shoes vide invoice no.LECBIV002073 dated 08.12.2020 for valuable consideration of Rs.12,698/- but within few days of the purchase of the said shoes, the sole of shoes got damaged. The complainant brought the said facts into the knowledge of OP No.1 and requested to replace the same, but the OP No.1 totally showed its inability to help the complainant and directed the complainant to lodge the matter with the customer care of the company. Accordingly, the complainant lodged his complaint with the customer care of the OP No.2 vide his email dated 12.01.2021 and, in turn thereof, the customer care of the OP No.2 directed the complainant to deposit the said product with the OP No.1 and after inspection, the claim of the complainant will be processed. Later on, the OP No.2 vide their mail dated 18.01.2021 refused to entertain the claim on the pretext that the claim of the complainant cannot be considered under the manufacturing defects. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 03.03.2021 through registered post upon the OPs but OPs neither replied to the notice nor refund was made to him. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP No.1 through registered post no.RH489717515IN dated 12.08.2021 which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 11.10.2021. OP No.2 given up vide order dated 10.08.2021.

3.             To prove his case, the ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on record, minutely and carefully.

5.             The grievance of the complainant, in the present complaint, is that the OP No.1 neither replaced the pair of shoes, which became defective within a short span of time after its purchase vide invoice  dated 06.12.2020(Annexure C-1), nor refunded the purchase price amounting to Rs.12,698/- to him despite the fact that it was duly brought to the notice of the OPs, vide email dated 12.01.2021(Annexure C-5) followed by legal notice dated 03.03.2021(Annexure C-6), that the pair of shoes had become useless for the complainant because of defects in the sole of the same. In support of his contention, the complainant has placed on record the photocopy of shoe(Annexure C-4) showing the crack in the same. A perusal of email dated 12.01.2021(Annexure C-5)sent by the complainant to the manufacturer of the shoes i.e. ASICS India Pvt. Ltd. shows that  the photocopy of the defective shoe alongwith the invoice (Annexure C-1) was sent to the manufacturer, where upon the complainant was asked to submit the pair of shoes in question in store for physical verification. As per email dated 18.01.2021(Annexure C-5(colly)) sent by the manufacturer to the complainant, the prayer of the complainant was declined on the ground that no manufacturing defect was found and the defect was attributed to the usage of the shoes. However, no report of any lab or any expert was sent alongwith the said email in support of the facts that there was no manufacturing defect in the shoes. The OP No.1, who is the seller of the shoes in question, neither replied the legal notice(Annexure C-6) nor took any action redressing the grievances of the complainant. Furthermore, the OP no.1 has preferred not to contest the present complaint and thus, the averments made by the complainant are unrebutted and uncontroverted.

6.             In view of the fact that the OP No.1 neither responded to the notice nor has he opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OP No.1 had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that OP No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency on his part.

7.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP No.1:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.12,698/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations charges.

 8.            The OP No.1 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP No.1 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP No.1. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 08.04.2022

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                Member                     Member                     President

 

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

 

                                          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini

                                                Member.