Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/68

Karanjeet Singh Gill - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bombay Footwear - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Singh

29 Apr 2019

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                 68 of 2018

Date of Institution :    23.04.2018

Date of Decision :      29.04.2019

Karamjit Singh Gill, House No.69, Giani Zail Singh Avenue, Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

Bombay Footware, Main Bazar, Faridkot through its Proprietor/Manager.

......OP

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

              

Present:  Sh Kuldeep Singh, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

    Sh Dildeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OP.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OP to replace the defective pair of shoes or to refund the cost price and for further directing them to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses.

2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 17.01.2018, complainant purchased a pair of shoes make Hitz Style Aode 6917

 

cc no.68 of 2018

colour Black worth Rs.2600/-from OP against proper bill and at the time of purchase, Op assured complainant that Hitz is a branded company and its products are of superior quality and also gave 6 months guarantee for replacement in case of any fault or defect in said shoes. It is submitted that complainant kept the shoes as reserve for attending parties and functions and used them for only two or three times, but he noticed that cracks and holes started developing in the sole of shoes and these gave a look of worn out. Complainant brought this fact into the notice of OP and requested them to replace the same. OP sold defective substandard pair of shoes to complainant having manufacturing date of October, 2015 and shoes were not fresh ones. OP issued incomplete bill to complainant and filed an application before Assistant Taxation Commission regarding this fact. Complainant made several requests to Ops to replace the pair of shoes but all in vain, rather OP flatly refused to do the needful and even misbehaved with complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. he has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                 Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 25.04.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                   On receipt of the notice, the OP filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as manufacturer company is not pleaded as party in present complaint. Thus, it is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. OP have denied all the

 

cc no.68 of 2018

allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that no cause of action arises against OP as complainant has weaved the facts in such a manner to mislead the Forum. However, it is admitted that complainant purchased the said  shoes from them but averred that there is no defect in said shoes and defect in shoes if any, that may be due to fault and negligence of complainant. it is further averred that complainant has concocted a false story and his request for replacement was denied as issues stated by complainant in present complainant were not found during repair and shoes were perfectly repaired by answering OP. Complainant has levelled false allegations to secure  new replaced shoes by misusing the warranty terms. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that shoes sold by them were of standard quality and warranty of six months was given by concerned company. It is further averred that complainant never approached them regarding any defect in said shoes and it is also denied that sole of shoes became defective. OP stressed mainly on the point that complainant never approached them regarding any problem in his shoes or for replacement thereof. All the allegations of complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

5                                            Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

 

 

cc no.68 of 2018

6                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sumit Arora as Ex OP-1 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP.                         

7                                           We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OP and have carefully perused and gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                       Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a pair of shoes worth Rs.2600/-from OP against proper bill dated 17.01.2018. OP assured complainant of its superior quality and gave 6 months guarantee for replacement in case of any defect in said shoes. Complainant kept the shoes as reserve for attending parties and functions and used them for only two or three times, but he noticed that cracks and holes started developing in the sole of shoes and these gave a look of worn out. Complainant reported the matter to OP and requested to replace the defective shoes, but OP paid no heed to his requests and flatly refused to do anything needful. It is further argued that OP sold defective substandard pair of shoes having manufacturing date of October, 2015 and shoes were not fresh ones and even OP issued incomplete bill to him. Complainant moved an application before Assistant Taxation Commission regarding this fact. Despite repeated requests, OP failed to redress the grievance of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. prayer for accepting the complaint is made. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 7.

 

cc no.68 of 2018

9                                               To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OP argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The present complaint is not maintainable. It is bad for non joinder of necessary party as manufacturer company is not impleaded in present complaint. OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted that complainant purchased the said shoes from them. it is further argued there is no defect in said shoes and defect if any, that may be due to fault and negligence of complainant. Complainant has concocted a false story to get replacement of said shoes and replacement was denied as during repairs, no defect was found in those shoes. OP argued that complainant never approached them regarding any defect in his shoes and sole of shoes became defective. OP stressed mainly on the point that complainant never approached them regarding any problem in his shoes or for replacement thereof. All the allegations of complainant are denied and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

10                                  To prove his pleadings complainant has placed on record document Ex C-4 i.e copy of bill dated 17.01.2018 that proves that complainant purchased said shoes from OP for Rs.2600/-. Ex C-5  is copy of box of shoes that clears that complainant purchase shoes of Hitz Company from OP. Ex C-6 is photograph of shoes sold by OP to complainant and mere look of these shoes depicts that these shoes do not look like new ones. Ex C-7 is copy of application given by complainant to Assistant Excise and Taxation Commission, Faridkot to whom he narrated about the mal practice of OP. Complainant has produced

 

cc no.68 of 2018

sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings and all these documents are beyond any doubt. On the other hand, OP have nothing to contradict the pleadings of complainant.                                          

11                                   From the careful perusal of record and going through the pleadings made by parties, it is observed that complainant purchased a pair of shoes from OP and OP gave six months warranty for same in case of any defect.     Sole of shoes developed cracks and these looked like old ones. Complainant brought the matter to the notice of OP and requested them to replace the same, but OP refused to hear the genuine request of complainant. OP did not accede to his request and failed to redress his grievance, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, plea taken by OP is that complainant never approached them regarding any defect in said shoes and for replacement thereof. It is observed that on the one hand OP are mentioning in preliminary objections that replacement was denied by them because during repair no defect was found in  said shoes but on the other hand, OP is stressing that complainant never approached them regarding any defect in shoes sold by them and no replacement was ever sought by him. averments taken by OP in  their written reply are contradictory. There is deficiency in service on the part of OP in selling defective shoes to them and they have aggravated the grievance of complainant by not making replacement of defective shoes sold by them to complainant.

12                                     From the above discussion and arguments led by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that complainant suffered harassment and mental agony due to act of OP in not providing effective and satisfactory services

 

cc no.68 of 2018

to complainant by not making replacement of defective shoes, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is directed to replace the pair of shoes in question with new one of same worth or to allow the complainant to purchase any other article or goods of same value. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 29.04.2019

(Parampal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                                 President