Date of Filling:      09.08.2016

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  29.06.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT:   THIRU.S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                                 ….PRESIDENT

THIRU:R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.,      …MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.35/2016

FRIDAY, THE 29 DAY OF JUNE 2018

S.Gowrishankar,

Plot No.58, Door No.7/1A

Vengadachalam Street,

Sozhapuram,

Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.                                              ……  Complainant

                                               //Versus//

Durable,

Represented by its Manager-in-Charge,

No.468, MTH Road,

Ambattur O.T

Chennai - 600 053.                                                               ……. Opposite party.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 18.06.2018 in the presence of complainant, who has appeared as party in person, opposite party called absent and set ex-parte, perused complainant’s side documents, and hearing the arguments on the side of the complainant and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

                                                       ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.S.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

            This complaint has been preferred by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite party with direction to refund the sum of Rs.795/- and to award of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and monetary loss due to the deficiency of service with cost  of Rs.5,000/-

2.The brief averments of the complaint as follows:-

The complainant purchased a Trolley bag, slipper and jacket from opposite party on11.05.2016 at around 4P.M., vide their cash bill No.732, dated 11.05.2016.  The total amount was Rs.3,305/- of which the jacket’s cost as Rs.795/-.

3. While purchasing the above mentioned items, the complainant had informed the opposite party that he was heading for an international trip and required these items for immediate use there.  The complainant landed in Munich, Germany in the early morning hours of next day (12.05.2016), and immediately wore the jacket bought from the opposite party to project himself from the cold temperature and rain.  The weather condition on his landing was sub 15 degree Celsius and to his shock, Zip in the jacket had worn out making him unable to wear the jacket.  Thus, the intended purpose of the jacket was not available, right at its first usage.  Thereafter, the complainant wore the jacket for few hours in an open posture exposing his chest, till he spent Euro 24.50 to purchase a new jacket in Munich.  In the interim, his health was affected with fever and throat infection out of wearing the defective jacket without the zip.

4. After returning from his international trip, the complainant visited the opposite party’s shop on 28.05.2016 at around 2 P.M. to have the jacket repaired or replaced with a new one.  The opposite party’s staff told the complainant that the zip didn’t work due to some fault in the bag and it had be repaired by paying additional charges. The other option given to the complainant was to wear the jacket without using the zip.  The complainant was shocked by this response as the material sold was faulty even on its first day of usage, requiring free service of replacement.  The complainant invited the attention of the opposite party to the bill, which clearly stated that Fancy varieties No Guarantee and others 5 weeks warranty only free service.  Going by the statement contained in the bill, the complainant was eligible for warranty, since he visited the opposite party shop within 3 weeks of purchase (11^th May to 28May).

5. Thereafter, the complainant sent a formal written communication to opposite party requesting them to comply the demand.  However, there was no response from the opposite party prompting him to file this complaint.

6. Though sufficient opportunities given to the opposite party they did not turned up before this Forum even on receipt of notice.  Hence, the  opposite party was set ex-parte.

 7.  On the side of the complainant, the complainant filed Proof Affidavit as his evidence in order to substantiate his case and Exhibit A1 to A4 are marked on his side.

8. At this Juncture, the points for determination before this forum are as follows:-

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties as narrated in the complainant?

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed for?

            9. Written Arguments filed by the complainant.

10. In such circumstances, this Forum decided to conclude this matter fully on merits with available evidence and documents putforth before this Forum, though the Opposite party is set Exparte.

11.Point No:1:-

Recording this point, on careful perusal of the averments as well as evidence adduced by the complainant through the proof Affidavit and the document, it is learnt that the complainant had purchased a jacket from the opposite party on 11.05.2016 at around 4.P.M. along with some other materials and the cost of the jacket is Rs.795/- and receipt for the same which is marked as Ex.A1.  Thereafter, when the complainant landed in Munich, Germany in the early morning hours of next day (12.05.2016) in order to protect himself from the cold temperature and immediately wore the jacket bought from the opposite party but, the zip in the jacket worn out making him unable to use for relevant purpose.  Therefore, the complainant was compelled to purchase a new jacket in Munich by spending 24.50 Euro.  In the meantime, his health was affected with fever and cold infection out of wearing and the copy of the photo of his defective jacket which is marked as Ex.A2. The copy of the Air-Ticket is marked as Ex.A4.

12. It is further learnt from the evidence that after returning international trip the complainant had visited the opposite party’s shop on 28.05.2016 with request either to repair the jacket or to replace the same with a new one.    The opposite party ‘s staff told the complainant that the zip did not work due to some fault in the bag and asked the additional charges for repair, though the material was given for early 3 weeks of purchase  since the warranty period is of 5 weeks for Fancy varieties for free services which is available  in the bill.  Then, the complainant has addressed letter to the opposite party to comply the demand and same is marked as ExA3 and there was no response from the opposite party and thereby the complainant is compelled to file this complaint.

13. At the outset, from the above facts and evidence of the complainant it is quite clear that the complainant has proved about the purchase of the jacket from the opposite party and thereafter, he visited the shop of the opposite party either repaired or replaced the same with new one.  Further, the consideration of Rs.795/- also has been proved through Ex.A1.  Similarly, the Ex.A2 clearly shown that the jacket purchased by the complainant from the opposite party is a defective one and further through Ex.A3 the complainant has addressed the  letter to the opposite party to comply his demand, either to repair the jacket or to replace with a new one.  While being so, the opposite party has not come forward to comply the demand of the complainant.  Furthermore, it is crystal clear that after filing of this complaint before this Forum, in spite of issued of notice from this Forum and the same was served the opposite party has either appeared or represented through counsel and therefore he was set-exparte.   Furthermore, it goes without saying that the allegations made against the opposite party by the complainant have not been rebutted by the opposite party at any stage. On the whole, It is needless to say that the complainant proved the deficiency of services on the part of the opposite party beyond any reasonable doubt.  Thus, the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No:2:-

14.  As per the decision arrived in point no.1, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the jacket of Rs.795/- with some reasonable compensation with cost.  Thus Point no.2 is answered accordingly

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the opposite party is directed  to  pay  the cost of the deficit jacket to the tune of Rs.795/- (Seven hundred and ninety five only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. (09.08.2016) till the date of this order (29.06.2018) on returning the said product by the complainant to the opposite party and also to pay  Rs.3,000/-(Thirty Thousand only) towards compensation  for causing mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party and  Rs.2,000/-(Two thousand only) towards the cost of  the proceedings  to the complainant.

The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, this said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open Forum of this 29 June 2018.

   -Sd-                                                                                                    -Sd-

MEMBER                                                                                    PRESIDENT

List of documents of the complainant:-

     -Sd-                                                                                                        -Sd-

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT