Haryana

Kurukshetra

285/2018

Virander Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Contabil Retail India - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Kalyan

09 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.285 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 19.12.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 09.05.2019.

 

Virainder Mohan son of Shri Sher Singh, resident of House No.800/7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Cantabil Retail India Limited SCO-45/17, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra Haryana, Phone No.01744-270045, through its proprietor/ owner. 
2. Cantabil Retail India Limited resident of B-16, Lawrence Road Indl Area Delhi- 110035, Phone No.91-11-27156838/81/83 through its Managing Director.

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Ms. Priyanka Kalyan, Advocate for complainant.   

                Sh. Shekhar Kamal, Advocate for opposite parties.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Virainder Mohan against the Cantabil Retail India Limited, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that op no.1 is authorized dealer of Cantabil retail India Limited and op no.2 is manufacturer and whole seller of cantabile products. That complainant purchased one trouser from op no.1 vide bill No.2T03-00995 for a sum of Rs.1041.96 and op no.1 assured the complainant about the quality and durability of the trouser. It is further averred that complainant worn the trouser only one time and thereafter washed the same. That after washing, colour of the trouser faded and the trouser became bobbling/ pilling. On 1.10.2018 the complainant approached the op no.1 and informed about the above said defect of the product and op no.1 received the trouser from the complainant and issued a receipt to the complainant and assured that when the representative of op no.2 will come then he will intimate the complainant through telephonically to come with the receipt on his showroom. It is further averred that no message received from the ops till 12.10.2018. On 13.10.2018, complainant approached the op no.1 and asked about the replacement of the trouser but op no.1 received back the receipt of the defective trouser and flatly refused to replace the defective trouser. That there is deficiency in service on the part of ops. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement stating therein that complainant has filed false complaint before this Forum. The true facts of the case are that the complainant has used the trouser and the trouser was damaged by the complainant due to his own fault. It was the complainant who purchased the goods after knowing fully well that the trouser is good and the complainant chose to bury the goods and then prefer this frivolous complaint just to extort money from the ops. It is further submitted that from the present complaint, it cannot be ascertained that the trouser as claimed even belongs to the op or not. Many consumers purchased the clothes from the op but they did not file any complaint towards the products and quality of clothes to the op. All other contents of the complaint are also denied.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             From the invoice dated 4.8.2018 Ex.C1, it is evident that complainant purchased the trouser in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.1041.69 besides other clothes. From the Photostat copy of the receipt Ex.C2, it is evident that op no.1 received the said trouser from the complainant on 1.10.2018 and in the said receipt defect about the trouser is mentioned and since then defective trouser is with the op no.1 and ops have failed to replace the same which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops and the complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the trouser in question from the ops. The ops have failed to substantiate their plea through any reliable and cogent evidence.

7.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1041.96 to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 09.05.2019.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.