Punjab

StateCommission

A/734/2017

Ganpati Fashion Wear - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagpal Singh - Opp.Party(s)

H.P.S.Chopra

24 Jan 2018

ORDER

        2^Nd ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No. 734 of 2017 

                                                          Date of Institution:  24.10.2017

                                                          Date of reserved  :16.01.2018

                                                          Date of Decision:   24.01.2018

 

Ganpati Fashion Wear, Railway Road, Sunam, District Sangrur through its Proprietor Minkush Garg son of Sh. Suresh Kumar Garg.

                                                          Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1. Jagpal Singh son of Atma Singh, resident of Village AmruKotra, Post Office Village AmruKotra, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

Respondent No.1/complainant

2. Octave Apparels Private Limited (through its Director), B-33, 325/5 GT Road (West) New Ashok Nagar, Sikand Cold Store WaliGali, Near Jalandhar Bye-Pass, Ludhiana.

                                           Respondent No.2/opposite party No.2

First Appeal against order dated  18.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum Sangrur.

Quorum:-

          Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

         Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant          :         Sh.A.K. Walia, Advocate 

          For respondent No.1   :         Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate

          For respondent No.2   :         Ex-parte

         

RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL MEMBER

ORDER

                   The appellant/opposite party No.1 (hereinreferred to as OP No.1) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 18.9.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.356  by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,   Sangrur (herein referred as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and Ops were directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.2450/- as cost of the jacket and also Rs.10,000/- compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. It was further directed that the order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.

2.                Complaint was filed by the respondent No.1/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that the complainant purchased a leather jacket from Op No.1 for an amount of Rs.2450/- vide Bill No.797 dated 29.01.2017. After 5-6 days the leather of the jacket started showing dots on some parts of the jacket for which the complainant approached OP No.1 who took the jacket and original bill from the complainant and assured that it will be changed after 10 days. Thereafter, complainant approached Op No.1 a number of times but OP No.1 refused to change the jacket and to return the bill by saying that the same was kept by the company. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs the complainant sought following directions:-

          1.      to pay an amount of Rs. 2450/- as cost of the jacket to the complainant along with interest upto date.

          2.      to pay Rs.20000/- on account of mental torture, agony and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Despite service, OPs No.1&2 did not appear in the District Forum and they were proceeded against ex-parte on 04.09.2017.

4.                Before the District Forum the complainant was allowed to lead evidence.

5.             In support of his allegations, the complainant tendered into evidence documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

6.                After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, evidence and documents brought on record, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed as above.

7.                Aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum, the appellant/opposite party No.1 has filed the present appeal.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is proceeded against ex-parte as per order dated 08.12.2017.

9.                Counsel for the appellant argued that as per invoice issued Ex.C-5 it was clearly mentioned “No guarantee of any product” on the invoice itself. There is no finding of the District Forum establishing any manufacturing defect in the product. The District Forum has awarded compensation five times than the invoice value of the leather jacket. Accordingly, it has been requested to accept the appeal and to set aside the order of the District Forum dated 25.07.2017 whereas counsel for the complainant argued that only after 5-6 days after the purchase, the leather of jacket started showing dots on some parts of the jacket. The complainant approached OP No.1 who realized that the leather is of poor quality and assured the complainant to change the same within ten days. After ten days Op No.1 informed that he had sent the jacket to the company and it will take some time. After three months OP No.1 returned the jacket saying that the company has refused to replace the jacket. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.The District Forum has rightly allowed the complainant and requested to uphold the order of the District Forum dated 25.07.2017.

10.              We agree to the findings of the District Forum wherein dots on the said leather jacket and deteriorated condition of jacket is clearly found visible from the photographs on the record. After purchase of jacket within a short period i.e. 5-6 days the complainant brought back the same to OP No.1 to show the dots/defects in the product. The arguments of counsel for OP No.1 that product  had “no guarantee” as per invoiceis not justified as the leather jacket has developed dots in a short period. There is no force in the argument that the product carried “No guarantee”goods once sold cannot be returned”,as the leather jacket was defective at the time of sale.It is not expected from OP No.1 to sale the defective goods. In this type of case, it is not necessary to prove manufacturing defects by examining any expert when defect in the goods is visible. OP No.1 was under obligation to change the defective goods which he failed. However, District Forum has awarded compensation five times to the purchase value of the leather jacket is on higher side. Certainly, it required to be decreased.

11.              Sequel to the above discussion, the appeal is party accepted and order of the District Forum is amended and OPs are directed to pay to the complainant as under:-

          i.        Rs.2450/- as cost of leather jacket in question

          ii.       Rs.2500/- as compensation on account of mental agony and

                   harassment.

          iii.      Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

12.              The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.7250/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. Rs.2750/- also deposited with this Commission vide order dated 27.10.2017. Out of that a sum of Rs.6050/- along with interest accrued thereon be paid to the respondent/complainant after the expiry of 90 days, from the dispatch of the certified copy of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court for release of the above amount and the remaining amount be refunded to the appellant/OP No.1.

13.              Copy of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. 

 

 

                                                                     (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

                                                                   Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                  

January  24,2018                                  (Rajinder Kumar Goyal)

PK/-                                                                       Member