Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/34/2016

Gurpreet singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Liberty House - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Navjot singh sidhu

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.34 of 2016

                                                            Date of institution:  14.03.2016                                                 

                       Date of decision  :   28.10.2016

 

 

Gurpreet Singh son of S. Prem Singh resident of House No.75 Mohalla Jassra, Sirhind City, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.    Liberty House, Liberty Road, P.O. Box No.103, Karnal- 132001(Haryana)  India, Head Office of Liberty Shoe through its MD/GM.

2.    Liberty Shoes limited, retail division 2 PFL, Village Patarasi, Ground Floor, Miles Mall, G.T. Road, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib 140406 through its authorized Signatory/Manager/Incharge.

3.    Liberty Shoes Ltd., Liberty Valley, Langha Road, village Chharba, P.O. Sahaspur, Tehsil Vikas Nagar, Dehradun-248197(Uttrakhand), through its authorized Signatory/MD/GM.

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14  of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                     Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member.

 

Present :         Sh. N.S. Sidhu, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

                      OPs No.1 & 3 exparte.

                      None for OP No.2

 

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant Gurpreet Singh son of S. Prem Singh resident of House No.75 Mohalla Jassra, Sirhind City, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant purchased a pair of Man Shoes brand "Fortune" colour black from OP No.2, vide bill No.5174 dated 07.01.2016, for Rs.1500/-. At the time of purchase of the said shoes OP No.2 gave guarantee against any defect and problem in the said shoes and also assured that OP No.2 would return the amount along with interest in case said shoes found defective. After one day from the date of purchase of the said shoes, internal and external leather defects arise and rip of leather shoes(shoes leather defect). The said defect is manufacturing defect and OP No.2 sold the defective shoes by misleading and misguiding the complainant that the same is of good quality. Thereafter on 09.01.2016 the complainant approached OP No.2 and told about the said defect in the shoes. OP No.2 after contacting OP No.1 and 3 told the complainant that the said shoes would be returned after the approval of OP No.3 and asked the complainant to wait for one month.  After one month the complainant again approached OP No.2 for return or exchange of said shoes but OP No.2 told the complainant that OP No.3 has not yet approved to exchange the shoes.  Thereafter on 22.02.2016 the complainant again approached OP No.2 for return or exchange of shoes but OP No.2 totally denied to exchange the shoes. Thereafter the complainant contacted OP No.3 telephonically for return of shoes but the OP is lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly denied to return and replace the shoes. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the sale price of the shoes i.e. Rs.1500/- and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and  Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. OPs No.1 & 3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint despite service. Hence, OPs No.1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte. OP No.2 appeared through representative, but failed to file any written version rather made a statement that his authority letter be treated as written version.

4.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence attested copy of bill Ex. C-1, his affidavit Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Dinesh Kumar, Representative, as Ex. OP2/1, copy of bill Ex. OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

5.                   The Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that he purchased a pair of shoes for Rs.1500/- from OP No.2, vide bill No.5174 dated 07.01.2016. The shoes developed defects after one day of use. The leather of the shoe rip apart gave way, which shows that the shoes are defective and it is a manufacturing defect. The complainant requested OP No.2 time and again to change the shoes but to no effect. OP No.3, who is the manufacturer of the shoes and OP No.1 is the head office of the company, but even they refused to change the shoes. The terms and conditions printed on the bill also mention "such exchange will be entertained with cash memo within 7 days of purchase".  OP No.3 when contacted on phone, lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to do the needful. The Ld. counsel  thus pleaded for the acceptance of his complaint and penalizing the OPs for deficiency in service and indulging in unfair trade practice.

6.                   OPs were given due notice and summons were duly served as per tracking reports of postal departments. OPs No.1 and 3 did not appear at any stage during the pendency of the complaint. Their non-appearance is nothing but an admission from their own side. OP No.2 appeared through representative but failed to file any written version rather gave a statement that his authority letter may be treated as written version. During evidence stage submitted an affidavit Ex. OP-2/1 wherein OP No.2 denied the allegations leveled by the complainant.  OPs neither submitted any written arguments nor appeared for oral arguments inspite of the fact that ten opportunities were given to them for written/oral arguments.

7.                   After hearing the Ld. counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments on behalf of the complainant, we find that there is force in the submissions of the Ld. counsel for the complainant. The OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant even during the pendency of the complaint.

8.                   In view of the above discussion we find that the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not repairing/replacing/exchanging the said defective shoes. Hence, we accept the complaint and direct the OPs;

a)       to refund the purchase price of the shoes by taking back the defective shoes within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise  the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

b)      Complainant is also held entitled to a compensation on account of mental tension, physical harassment and unwanted litigation for a sum of Rs.2500/- including cost of litigation. This amount is also to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

9.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 25.10.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.           

Pronounced

Dated:  28.10.2016                                                  

   

                                                                                 (Veena Chahal)                      

                                                                       Member

 

                                                                               (A.B.Aggarwal)                              

                                                                Member