IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.155/09 Between: C.M. Mathews, aged 68 years, Retd. Chief Engineer, KSEB, Sankaramangalam, Eraviperoor.P.O., Thiruvalla – 689 542. ...... Complainant. And: The Branch Manager, Sylcon, Neha Leather, TMJ Building, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla. ...... Opposite party. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows: On 12.8.2009 the complainant had purchased a pair of Adidas Sports Shoes from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.980/- and the receipt for the same has been issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant had purchased this shows for playing outdoor Badminton for one hour per day. Within two months from the date of purchase of the shoes the sole of shoes were completely torn-off with holes. The complainant had used this shoe for 36 hours only and it was informed to the opposite party. On 19.10.2009 the opposite party promised him to replace the shoes or return the price of the shoes. So the complainant returned the shoes to the opposite party and it was acknowledged in the cash receipt issued by them. After that the complainant approached several time to the opposite party for getting the new shoes for the return of the price, but there is no response from the opposite party. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite party to return the price of the shoes along with compensation and cost. The complainant prays for allowing the complaint. 3. The notice for the appearance of opposite party was issued and the same was served to him. But he did not appeared or filed version hence he is set exparte and he remained as such. 4. The point for consideration in this complaint is: (1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for in the complaint? 5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the 2 documents produced by him. The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 and A1(a). There is no oral or documentary evidence from opposite parties. After closure of the evidence, complainant heard. 6. Point No.1:- The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a sports shoe from the opposite party for playing outdoor badminton for one hour per day. After purchasing the shoes within two months he had used it only for 36 hours then the sole of shoes become worn off with holes. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite party who agreed to replace the shoes or to return the price and he received the shoes from the complainant and it was acknowledged in the receipt issued by him. The complainant approached the opposite party several time for getting the shoes or its price. But the opposite party did not turned up hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. 7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A1(a) were marked. Ext.A1 is the cash bill (receipt) issued in the name of SYLCON dated 12.8.2009 to the complainant. Ext.A1(a) is the endorsement made by the opposite party on 19.10.2009 for the receipt of the sports shoes from the complainant. 8. On going through the evidence in this case, Ext.A1 shows that the complainant had purchased a shoe (Gents Chappal) for an amount of Rs.980/- from the opposite party. Ext.A1(a) entry “Received Adidas Red Shoes for company for service (sole problem)” clearly shows that on 19.10.2009 the opposite party had received the shoes from the complainant for redressing the complainant’s grievances. According to the complainant he had purchased the shoes for playing badminton. After using the shoes for 36 hours only within two months the shoes became damaged and he could not use it. The opposite party had received the shoes from the complainant by agreeing that it would be replaced or return the price. After that the complainant approached the opposite party several time for getting the shoes or its price. But the opposite party has not replaced the shoes or returned the price till this date. The non-replacing of the shoes or its price to the complainant is a clear deficiency in service and is an unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party which caused mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences to the complainant. The opposite party is liable to compensate the same. In the circumstances, we find a clear deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and the complainant is entitled to get the price of shoes along with a compensation and cost from the opposite parties. For allowing the compensation of Rs.4,520/- as prayed for in the complaint, the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he had suffered such a financial loss and other inconvenience and the opposite party is liable for the same. Therefore the compensation claimed in the complaint is not allowable and is limited to Rs.1,000/-. From the above discussions, the complainant’s prayer can be allowed with modifications. 9. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.980/- (Rupees Nine hundred and eighty only) as the price of the shoes received from the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and a cost of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to pay the amounts within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which an interest at the rate of 8% per annum will be paid to the complainant till the date of whole payment from today. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of January, 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : C.M. Mathews Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Bill dated 12.8.2009 for Rs.980/- for the purchase of chappal issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A1(a) : Endorsement made by the opposite party on 19.10.2009 for the receipt of the sports shoes from the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) C.M. Mathews, Retd. Chief Engineer, KSEB, Sankaramangalam, Eraviperoor.P.O., Thiruvalla – 689 542. (2) The Branch Manager, Sylcon, Neha Leather, TMJ Building, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla. (3) The Stock File.
......................Jacob Stephen
......................LathikaBhai
......................N.PremKumar | | 
