1.         This appeal by  complainant   is directed against the  order dated 4.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.339 of 2009  was dismissed.

2.         The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

The Complainant purchased a pair of  shoes ‘Reebok make’  from  OP on 15.7.2008 for Rs.4,194/- vide Annexure C-1 which according to him was issued in wrong name. At the   time of purchase  OP told that the Company provides guarantee upto one year from the date of purchase.  The Complainant noticed that the shoes were torn due to manufacturing defect within a period of 5 months. He immediately approached the OP for replacement of the shoes and  after examining the shoes, OP  told him that as  the manufacturing plant was in Korea, so the  shoes  would be got repaired from the manufacturing plant because the same were within the guarantee/ warranty period. OP  assured that the shoes  after repair would get their new look and the Complainant was asked to come after two weeks. When he approached the OP after two weeks, he was told to come after 10 days. When complainant again approached  he was surprised to notice that the OP got the shoes repaired manually instead of getting it repaired on machine. The shoes after having  repaired looked so ugly that the same  were not in a wearable condition  because instead of replacing the whole side nets of the shoes as promised, small patches were applied.  After seeing the miserable condition of the shoes, the Complainant requested the OP to replace the shoes with a new pair.  The OP then told the Complainant to come after a week. When he approached the OP for new shoes, the OP flatly refused to replace the shoes and also to refund the price of the shoes.  The Complainant thereafter sent representations to the OP as well as  to the   company, but  to no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. 

4.         Upon issuance of notice of the complaint  by the District Forum,   Sh. Anand Mahajan, Manager of OP appeared and sought time to file reply and evidence but thereafter, nobody turned up on behalf of OP and suffered exparte proceedings. The complainant then  in ex parte evidence tendered his duly sworn affidavit and documents annexure C-1 to C-4.    

5.           The learned District Consumer Forum after  going through the ex parte  evidence  and hearing the   learned counsel for the complainant came to the conclusion that  as OP had got the shoes repaired  but complainant himself refused to wear the same, so whatever service was to be offered by OP, it had rendered the same and no deficiency in service on the part of OP could be said.   This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, complainant  has    come up in this appeal.

6.         Today none has appeared  on behalf of the parties. It is also to add here that OP was duly served before the District Consumer Forum and  on its behalf Sh.Anand Mahaja, manager  had appeared  there  and sought time to file reply and evidence but thereafter none appeared on its behalf. Here again before the State Commission also,  inspite of service none appeared on behalf of OP. We have gone through the material  carefully and have also given our thoughtful consideration.  In the affidavit filed on behalf of  complainant it is apparent that receipt of  shoes was issued in the wrong name by OP and this fact was immediately disclosed but same was not rectified. It is further evident that the defective pair of shoes was ultimately delivered to OP for its repair from the company as promised by OP. However, the said pair of shoes was neither got repaired from the company, nor the same was taken back by the complainant.  A perusal of  the letters written by the complainant copies of which are there on the file also goes a longway to show that the OP was approached time and again for getting the shoes repaired  or replaced.  From all these facts which have gone unrebutted on the file, it can be safely inferred that OP was unfair in trade and also deficient in service towards the complainant. In this regard the District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the facts and material brought on file by the complainant. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7.         In the result, this appeal succeeds and consequently complaint filed by complainant is allowed  in the following terms ;

OP shall replace the defective  pair of shoes with a new one  or in the alternative refund the cost thereof  to the complainant within two weeks from the copy of this order is received, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the  said amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization. As none has appeared on behalf of the parties before this commission, therefore, parties are left to bear their own costs.  

             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.