Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/919/2019

Saksham Saigal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Leeds Sports Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Tushar Arora & Sahil dawar

08 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	919/2019
Date of Institution	:	10.09.2019
Date of Decision	:	08.01.2020

 

                                       

                       

 

Saksham Saigal r/o H.No.3036, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Leeds Sports Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.116, First Floor, Elante Mall, Plot No.178, Industrial Area-I, Chandigarh through its Manager/Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

2.     ASICS India Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram Haryana -122202, India.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:
	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER

 

Argued by:-	Sh.Sahil Dawar, Adv. for the complainant
	OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased a pair of running shoes make Asics vide Invoice dated 08.10.2018 for Rs.9,999/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 for his comfort use. It has been alleged that within six months, it became deplorable and torn from the above and, therefore, he stopped using the shoes and approached OP No.1 but they have stated that they cannot do anything as the issue was to be sent to Head Office (OP No.2). He wrote an e-mail dated 29.04.2019 (Annexure C-2) to OP No.2 for replacement of the shoes to which he received reply through e-mail (Annexure C-3) that the warranty was for 6 months only. He again wrote a email dated 30.04.2019(Annexure C-4)  to OP No.2 stating that the shoes had hampered his training and look very ugly but they declined the claim  vide e-mail (Annexure C-5) on the ground that the shoes were out of warranty period. Subsequently he again requested vide e-mail dated 04.05.2019 to OP No.2 to look into the matter but to no effect.  It has been alleged that the shoes were torn within the warranty period but the OPs never replaced it till date. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Despite due service through registered post, the OPs failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.11.2019.
3.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         In exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint. The complainant purchased the shoes in question vide bill/voucher dated 08.10.2018 for Rs.9,999/-. The complainant has specifically stated that the shoes almost broke down immediately within the warranty period and he approached the store of the Company for getting the issue resolved but they straightway showed their inability to replace the shoes and advised him to approach the Company i.e. ASICS India Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, he exchanged e-mails dated 29.04.2019, 30.04.2019 and 04.05.2019 with OP No.2 but they refused to change the shoes in question on the ground that the same has exceeded six months warranty period from the date of its purchase.  
5.      Going through the facts & circumstances of the case as well as the documents & pleadings of the complainant, in order to clinch the matter in dispute, it has been made out that though the warranty of the product has expired as on date, but the complainant had approached OP No.1  with regard to defect in  shoes  within the warranty period.   There seems to be a deep rooted conspiracy between the OPs to take the complainant in general for a ride by cheating and making him to buy their product which cannot stand the test of time within the warranty period. In our view, a branded product is expected to be in a wearable condition for not only within the warranty period but even after expiry of the warranty period for a reasonable period and is not expected to crack within the warranty of six months only as it would amounts to loss to the innocent consumers who have to bear the irreparable loss. This discloses that the very purpose of the purchase of the company shoes got defeated.
6.         Furthermore, the absence of OPs draws an adverse inference that despite having knowledge of the dispute in question, they chose not to appear and they did not come forward to defend the claim of the complainant for the simple reason that either they admit the claim of the complainant or left with nothing to contradict the claim raised by the complainant. Hence, the allegations of the complainant supported by duly sworn affidavit go un-rebutted and unchallenged.
7.         Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we allow the complaint with a direction to the OPs to replace the shoes with a new one and to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment including litigation expenses, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to initiate the proceedings under Sections 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs.
8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 08/01/2020	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER