DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 18^th day of November   2024                                                                                             

  Filed on: 18.02.2021

PRESENT

Shri. D.B.Binu                                                                         President

Shri. V.Ramachandran                                                             Member

Smt. Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                 Member     

C.C No.92/2021

COMPLAINANT

Biju John, MP John, XVI 363-A,  Mundakkal House, Thaikkattukara P.O., Pin-682 016 Pincode

Vs

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1)       Giltwood Fashions Pvt Ltd, New No. 3 is no 855, 11% C Main Avenue, 5^th  Block Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 041.

2.       Pepe Jeans India Limited. Unit No. 303 & 304, 3rd Floor, C Wing Corporate Avenue, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093, Email id:  

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1)       A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant has raised a grievance against the opposite party regarding defective products purchased from their showroom at Lulu Mall, Edappally, Kochi. The complainant purchased multiple pairs of jeans from Pepe Jeans' showroom, averaging 5 to 6 pairs annually. A specific purchase worth ₹11,597/- was made from the Lulu Mall showroom, though the bill has been misplaced. Despite the company's premium pricing, with the MRP of each pair around ₹5,999/-, the jeans frequently developed rips within a year of purchase, allegedly due to poor-quality fabric. This issue was experienced with two pairs of jeans in a year.

Although one defective pair was replaced by the company upon complaint, subsequent grievances raised by the complainant were not addressed by Pepe Jeans, leading to frustration and inconvenience. The complainant attempted to resolve the matter but received no response from the opposite party, causing mental agony and necessitating additional transportation expenses for follow-up visits.

Relief Claimed

Refund of ₹5,999/- for the defective jeans.

Compensation of ₹10,000/- for mental agony.

Reimbursement of ₹2,000/- for transportation expenses incurred in pursuing the complaint.

The complainant seeks appropriate redressal for the monetary loss, inconvenience, and distress caused by the negligence of the opposite party in providing quality products and addressing customer complaints.

2. NOTICE:

The Commission issued a notice to the first opposite party, who responded by submitting photocopies of certain documents accompanied by a covering letter.

However, the notice issued to the second opposite party was returned with a "left" endorsement from the postal department, indicating that the second opposite party was no longer available at the provided address. The complainant was informed to furnish the correct addresses of the second opposite party but failed to respond or provide the correct addresses.

3. Evidence

The complainant did not file a proof affidavit but produced three documents along with the complaint before the commission:

1. Copy of the Complaints which the complainant has sent to the second opposite party.

2. Purchase Bills

3. Photos of the Complaint Jeans

4. Legal Analysis and Observations:

The principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" (hear the other side) mandates that each party be given a fair opportunity to present their case. In this context, the Commission's request for the correct addresses of the second opposite party aligns with the principles of natural justice, ensuring that the opposite parties are properly notified and given a chance to present their side.

5. Deficiency in Service and Negligence:

The Consumer Protection Act defines "deficiency" as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance that is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force. The complainant alleged that the opposite party provided a defective product which prima facie constitutes a deficiency in service.

However, the continuous absence of the complainant and failure to submit the correct addresses of the second opposite party indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the case. The complainant's absence from 16.03.2022 to 30.10.2024, and repeated failure to attend subsequent hearings, further supports this observation.

Conclusion:

In view of the continuous absence of the complainant and the failure to submit the correct addresses of the second opposite party, it is evident that the complainant has shown a lack of interest in pursuing the case. Despite multiple opportunities, the complainant has neither provided the necessary correct addresses of the second opposite party nor made further appearances to take alternative steps before the Commission, showing a lack of interest in advancing the case.

ORDER:

Consequently, this complaint is hereby dismissed due to the complainant's non-compliance. No cost.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 18^th day of November 2024.

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                        V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

                                                                             Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s evidence

1)       Copy of the Complaints which the complainant has sent to the second opposite party.

2.       Purchase Bills

3.       Photos of the Complaint Jeans

Date of Despatch   ::

By Hand      ::

By Post       ::