Haryana

Panchkula

CC/202/2015

PUSHPENDRA SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BLACKBERRY'S - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

18 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	202 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	24.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	18.12.2015

                                                                                            

Pushpendra Sharma, son of Mr.Ramakant Sharma, R/o House No.876, First Floor, Sector-17, Panchkula, Haryana-134108.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Blackberrys Store, C/o Kishori Lal Jain & Co., SCO No.329, Ground Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula-134109.
2. Blackberrys (Mohan Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd.) Corporate Office, 76, Udhyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Gurgaon-122001.

                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Ms.Pooja Bhalla, Authorised representative for the complainant.

               Ops are already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(S.P.Attri, Member)

 

1. The complaint has been filed by complainant with the averments that on 03.06.2015, he purchased two trousers and two shirts for Rs.6880 from Blackberry Store i.e. OP No.1 and made the payment through his wife’s credit card. After wash, some defect occurred in one trouser out of four garments cost of which was Rs.1995. The complainant being the Blackberry’s member and on his birthday i.e. on 13.05.2015, a special discount of Rs.1000/- was given on total purchase of garments worth Rs.7800/-. On 13.06.2015, the complainant visited and requested the store incharge to get the trouser exchanged as it was defective i.e. there was a difference in the texture of the fabric on both sides of the front pockets. On 18.06.2015, the complainant again visited the Op No.1 who stated that they were sending the trouser to their head office for reporting the defect. On 24.06.2015, the complainant again visited the Op No.1 and he was asked to wait for few more days. On 24.07.2015, the complainant again visited the Op No.1 who returned the trouser saying that it had been rejected by their corporate office on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect. On 09.08.2015, the complainant sent an email and requested for a solution to his problem but to no avail and even they did not acknowledge the mail. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure C-A, Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4.
2. Notices were issued to the Ops but they did not appear before this Forum, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.11.2015.
3. We have heard authorized representative of the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
4. It is established that the complainant purchased two trousers and two shirts for Rs.6880 from Blackberry Store i.e. OP No.1 and made the payment through his wife’s credit card (Annexure C-4). After wash, some defect occurred in one trouser out of four garments which cost was Rs.1995. The complainant requested the store incharge to get the trouser exchanged as it was defective i.e. there was a difference in the texture of the fabric on both sides of the front pockets. After satisfying, the OP No.1 on 18.06.2015 sent the trouser to their head office after reporting the defect as per Annexure C-1 with comments “D.LT colore fade between ZIP and side pocket in 1^st wash”. On 24.06.2015, the Op No.1 returned the trouser and stated that it had been rejected by their corporate office on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect (Annexure C-2). Before rejecting the complaint of the complainant, the OP No.2 has not given any opportunity to explain his position whereas the OP No.1 has observed the defect and sent the product for exchange. On 09.08.2015, the complainant sent an email (Annexure C-3) and requested for a solution to his problem but to no avail. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
5. The Ops did not appear and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same is accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
6. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-

1. To exchange the defective trouser or to pay Rs.1995/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

18.12.2015           S.P.ATTRI           ANITA KAPOOR             DHARAM PAL

                                      MEMBER           MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

 

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

    

                                 

                                                         S.P.ATTRI

                                                          MEMBER