Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/277/2016

Nike India Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harnoor Sidhu - Opp.Party(s)

Sayaveer Singh, Adv.

05 Oct 2016

ORDER

          STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL                          COMMISSION,U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	277 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	03.10.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.10.2016

Nike India Private Limited, Ground & Ist floor, Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Park, CV Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560093.

                                                    ……Appellant

V e r s u s

1. Harnoor Sidhu W/o Mr.T.S.Sidhu, R/o H.No.111, Sector-10-A, Chandigarh-160011.

                                          -Respondent No.1

2. Nike M R Enterprises, SCO No.42, Sector-17-E, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                      ....Respondent No2

         Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:     JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                     MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                      

 

Argued by:       Mr.Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                                             

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has filed this appeal against an order dated 16.8.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal     Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), allowing a complaint bearing No.111 of 2016  filed by respondent No.1/ complainant.    

2.        In her complaint, it was case of the complainant that  in the month of October,2013, she had purchased a pair of shoes against price of Rs.11,995/-  from Opposite Party No.2/respondent No.2.  The shoes got deflated.  The matter was taken up with the appellant and  Opposite Party No.2 and the defective pair of shoes was replaced with a new  one. However, within two days of replacement, its air capsule again became defective. Again the  pair of shoes was replaced with a brand new one on 14.8.2014, on charging extra amount of Rs.1000/- from the complainant.  The said pair of shoes also met with the same fate.  Its air capsule also deflated. The matter was reported to the Consumer Care Section of Opposite Parties on 18.1.2015 with a request to replace the pair of shoes.  However, no response was received, which led the complainant to file the above consumer complaint.

3..      Upon notice, OP No.1 filed written statement opposing claim raised by the complainant.  On account of  defect indicated as above, replacement of defective pair of shoes twice was admitted.  It was further stated that when second time benefit was given to the complainant, the product purchased was not within warranty.  No replacement could have been granted for the third time and accordingly the claim was rightly rejected. 

 4.          Opposite Party No.2 adopted reply filed by Opposite Party No.1.  

5.        It is vehemently contended before us that the Forum has erred in allowing the complaint because there is nothing on record to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the product in question.  The Forum has rejected similar argument raised, by observing as under ;

       “It is an admitted fact that in the month of October 2013, the complainant purchased a pair of shoes known as “AIR MAX” range of shoes worth Rs.11,995/- from OP-2.  It is also an admitted fact that the air capsule in the shoe got deflated twice.  It is also admitted fact that on 14.8.2014 the defective shoe was replaced second time with a brand new one vide claim slip No.24800 (Annexure C-4).  Since the price of the new pair of shoe had gone up, so a sum of Rs.1,000/- additional was charged from the complainant   Third time also, the air capsule of the shoe got deflated and ultimately the OPs have refused to replace the defective pair of shoe on the pretext that the warranty period had already expired.

        The first question which requires determination is as to whether there is a manufacturing defect in the shoe?  On two occasions there was the same defect in the pair of shoes as air capsule got deflated.  Thus, it is proved that the present pair of shoes has the same defect which was there in the earlier shoes which were got replaced. Annexure C-2 is the reply given by OP-1 to the email (Annexure C-1) of the complainant.  Annexure C-2 proves that the complainant was informed that as per their replacement policy, a product can be replaced for any manufacturing defect only, within its warranty period of 6 months from the date of purchase alongwith the original Nike retail receipt. As per the Nike India Consumer Care Policy, filed by OP-1, manufacturing defects means “Any and all defects in production pertaining to materials and/or workmanship. Such defects include issues related to bonding, stitching, material/components failure, cosmetics and workmanship.  This guarantee applies when the product is used under normal conditions and for the purpose in which the product was designed.  This does not apply to normal wear and tear or damage related to alteration, accident, misuse, improper care or negligence).”  Thus, as per the said policy, in case there is manufacturing defect in any pair of shoes that can only be replaced by the company. Once the pair of shoes of the complainant was replaced, so impliedly there was a manufacturing defect in the same. Since the present pair of defective shoes in possession of the complainant has the same defect, so we have no hesitation to hold that there was a manufacturing defect in the same.  The judgments relied upon by the OPs are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand as manufacturing defect is proved in this case.”

6.         It was rightly said that the very fact that the defective pair of shoes was replaced twice and thereafter it also went to the same way as its air capsule was deflated, proves that there was manufacturing defect in the product.  The Forum was justified in ordering refund of price of the shoes. Furthermore, it was rightly noted that when second time defective pair of shoes was replaced with a new one, the complainant was made to pay an extra amount of Rs.1000/-.  By finding as above,  it was correctly said that the period of warranty would start from the date  when on charging additional price, defective pair of shoes was replaced.  It is proved on record that three times the air capsule in the shoes purchased was deflated. The above fact clearly shows that the product was not marketed after proper and thorough check up. Otherwise, a tested product will not be defective three times consecutively in the manner as happened in the present case.  The order passed by the Forum is justified and  no  inference is required to be made therein. 

7.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld.

8.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

05.10.2016                         Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

Js                                                         MEMBER

 

                      STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No. 277 of 2016)

 

Argued by: Mr.Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                    

                        

                     

Dated the 5th   day of October, 2016

 

ORDER

 

             As per appellant there is delay of 7 days in filing appeal. However, as per office  report there is no such delay.

2.          For the reasons stated  in the application seeking condonation of delay, the delay is condoned.

 3.       Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage,  with no order as to costs.

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH                    (RETD.)                     PRESIDENT