By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.Case of the complainant:-
On 9/10/2018 complainants purchased Woodland branded slipper from opposite party for an amount of Rs. 2295/- having three months warranty. But within two months of its use, that slippers was damaged and its colour faded and the strap of the slippers came off. On 17/12/2018 complainant had approached the opposite party and entrusted the slippers to them to repair the slippers. But opposite party was not ready to repair the slippers because complainant had been used the slippers for two months. Moreover opposite party informed the complainant that complainant was not eligible for warranty benefits for these reasons. More over opposite party behaved very badly to complainant. Due to the continuous request from complainant, opposite party received the slippers from complainant to give the slippers to the distributor of that company. After two days opposite party called complainant through phone and informed him that the distributor had returned the slippers to opposite party due to the reason that the above slippers had used by complainant nearly 6 months. But the complainant purchased the slippers only two months before. There is clear deficiency of service from the side of opposite party and there is an unfair trade practice also. Hence this complaint.
2. Prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get Rs. 30,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and notice served on them but they did not turn up. Hence opposite party set exparte. Thereafter they filed an IA 74/2019 to set side the exparte order pronounced against them and it allowed and they filed version.
4. In their version they denied all the averments and the allegations stated by
complainant in his complaint. They again stated that they had legacy since 1990 in
business. Customer satisfaction is their motto. They again stated that from the documents and complaint it is not clear that who bought the slippers and the date of purchase of the slippers. They again stated that it is wonderful to hear that both the complainants together purchased one Slippers from opposite party shop. Moreover complainants not added the Woodland Company as a party in this case.
Hence this case is not maintainable due to the defect of non- joinder of necessary party.
5. The warranty matters are dealing by the company directly not through this shop. Another point stated by opposite party is that there is some contradictions in the bill produced by complainant. There is clear direction from the company that the woodland brand slippers not be used in water. Another point contented by opposite party is that the complainant never approached them. The contentions raised by complainants are well written story prepared by someone to demoralise the opposite party shop. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
6. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the copy of confirmed ticket of complainant No.2 from Bombay to Calicut, Ext.A2 is the copy of cash payment details dated 09/10/2018, Ext.A3 is the copy of Tax invoice dated 09/10/2018. But opposite party did not file any affidavit and documents. Opposite party just filed version only , but no affidavit to prove his case.
7. Hence the allegations against opposite party is proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainants produced three documents which are very supportive to prove their case. Moreover one of the contention of opposite party in their version is that there is nothing mentioned in the complaint and documents about the date of purchase. But the date is clearly mentioned in Ext. A2 and A3 documents. Another contention of opposite party is that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party . But in their version they did not mentioned the name and full address of the company they mentioned. Complainant does not know the address and the details of woodland company. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint and we allow this complaint holding that opposite party is deficient in service.
8. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2195/-(Rupees Two thousand one hundred and ninety five only) the cost of the slippers to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 9 % per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 3rd day of June, 2022.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1 : Copy of ticket confirmation from Bombay to Calicut of complainant No.2
Ext.A2 : Copy of cash payment details dated 09/10/2018.
Ext.A3 : Copy Tax invoice dated 09/10/2018.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party Nil
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
