BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 268

Date of Institution : 26.8.2010

Date of Decision : 23.11.2010

Simarjit Singh son of Major Singh, resident of V. Golewala, Tehsil & District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

1. Bombay Footwear, Main Bazaar, Faridkot, through its Prop/partner Sumit Arora.

2. Reebok India Company, 530/1, 3 and 4, Vill. Bijwasan Opp. Ambedkar Colony, New Delhi-110061 through its Manager/MD.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Birinder Singh Sandhwan counsel for the complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for selling the sub standard shoe of Reebok to the complainant and further for not issuing any bill to the complainant and not replacing the same and for directing the opposite party No. 1 to issue the bill and to replace the shoes and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs. 1,100/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 12.6.2010 the complainant alongwith German Singh and Pargat Singh approached the shop of the opposite party No. 1 for the purchase of the shoes. On the demand of complainant the opposite party No. 1 sold the shoes make Reebok to the complainant for a total sum of Rs. 2490/- with the assurance that the shoes are of well reputed company i.e manufactured by the opposite party No. 2 and also gave oral warranty for the one year to the complainant. He also demanded the bill of shoes but the opposite party No. 1 flatly refused to give any bill rather gave a visiting card by saying that in case of any defect the shoes will be replaced by showing the said card. The complainant astonished to see that after about a fortnight the soal of the said shoes separated from its upper. He approached the opposite party No. 1 with the request to replace the pair of shoes, but the opposite party No. 1 at first kept the matter linger on and at last in second week of August flatly refused to replace the shoes and to issue any bill, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 1,100/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.8.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, one Rakesh Kumar put in appearance on the first date of hearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 but thereafter no one appeared on their behalf and the opposite parties stayed away from the proceedings, hence the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.10.2010. Similarly the opposite party No. 2 also did not appear despite summons sent to them through RC and ultimately the opposite party No. 2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.10.2010.

5. To prove their respective pleadings the complainant wanted to prove some documents and proper opportunity was given to him. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of application dated 17.8.2010 Ex.C-2, application dated 17.8.2010 Ex.C-3, application dated 17.8.2010 Ex.C-4, copy of visiting card Ex.C-5, paid of shoes Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

7. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the opposite party No. 1 has sold sub standard shoes to him without issuing any bill to the complainant manufactured by opposite party No. 2 and soal of the said shoes has broken within only 15 days from its purchase. On approaching the opposite party No. 1 they refused to replace the shoes and also to issue any bill. To prove the purchase of the shoes from opposite party No. 1 the complainant tendered visiting card of opposite party No. 1 Ex.C-5 and to prove condition of shoes he tendered pair of shoes as Ex.C-6. Prayer is made for replacement of shoes and for compensation and litigation expenses.

8. We have keenly considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case. From the material produced by the complainant which has remained un-rebutted and unchallenged the stance of the complainant is found to be correct as the opposite parties have not dared to rebut the same. Therefore the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted with a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,490/- as costs of the shoes and Rs. 1,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses totaling Rs. 3,490/- to the complainant, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing the opposite parties shall pay the above mentioned amount of Rs. 3,490/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of this complaint till realization of the amount. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 23.11.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)