BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.428 of 2017

Date of Instt. 07.11.2017

Date of Decision: 05.06.2018

Sandip Sharma aged 52 years son of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma resident of House No.443, Shiv Puri Mohalla, Kartarpur, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Liberty House, Liberty Road, P.O. Box No.-103, Karnal, Haryana. Through its Managing Director.

2. Proprietor of Company Mega Showroom, Punjab Sales, 408, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Ashu Mittu, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

OP No.1 and 2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein stated that the complainant is a bonafide purchaser and the OP No.1 is manufacturer of shoes and OP No.2 is a shop keeper and sells shoes at Company Mega Showroom, Punjab Sales, 408, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar. The complainant visited the shop of OP No.2 for the purpose of buying a new pair of shoe on 03.10.2017 and accordingly, the OP No.2 put some fresh stock as Lucky Sizes in the showroom on 50% off and displayed as a new stock. OP No.2 assured the complainant that the shoes put as Lucky Sizes are good for their value and are from the new stock, which is manufactured by OP No.1. OP No.2 also apprised that these shoes are put on 50% off as due to the unavailability of all sizes. That complainant unfortunately found himself a Lucky customer and purchased a pair of Brown coloured leather Fortune shoe, vide bill No.4463, for a sum of Rs.1250/-. The complainant is a well reputed advocate and on the next day i.e. on 04.10.2017, he went to attend a party organized by Dr. Sukhwinder Singh and in the said party, he came to know that the shoe, which he wear is a damaged shoe and due to that reason, he was defamed in the said party and then on 07.10.2017, the complainant alongwith Gurwinder Singh, Adv and his Clerk Rohit Gaba visited the shop of OP No.2 and complained about the shoe, but OP No.2 refused to listen the complaint of the complainant and otherwise misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant suffered mental agony and lot of mental tension and harassment by the act of both the OPs, who sold the old and damaged shoes to the complainant and as such, a legal notice was served to the OP, but they did not give any reply of the same and accordingly, the instant complaint filed by the complainant with the request that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the cost of shoes i.e. Rs.1250/- alongwith the cost of the case and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service both the OPs did not come present and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

3. In order to prove his exparte claim, complainant himself tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA and affidavit of Gurwinder Singh Ex.C2/A and some documents Ex.C-1 to C-3 and photographs of the Shoes Mark-1 to Mark-6 and closed the exparte evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

5. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is only that the complainant purchased a pair of shoe from OP No.2, who is running a showroom of the Liberty shoe manufactured by OP No.1. The complainant stated that he purchased a pair of shoe on 03.10.2017 for an amount of Rs.1250/- apart from other articles, but the said shoe when wore by the complainant on 04.10.2017 and went to attend a party organized by Dr. Sukhwinder Singh and in the said party, the factum in regard to damage shoe came to the notice of the complainant and where he was defamed in the presence of general public and accordingly, he approached the OP No.2 and complained that why he sold a damage shoe to the complainant, but the OP No.2 did not bother to hear the complainant and in order to prove that the shoes so purchased by the complainant was the damaged one and the complainant brought on the file photographs of the said shoe, which are Mark-2 to Mark-5 and further complainant also brought on the file invoice of the said shoe Ex.C-1.

6. The allegations as made by the complainant are un-rebutted and un-challenged, when situation is so, then we have no earthly ground to discard the un-rebutted and un-challenged version of the complainant rather we force to accept the said version and accordingly, we come to conclusion that the OPs have sold the defective shoe to the complainant, whereby caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant and also committed unfair trade practice and as such, the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

7. As an upshot of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay in lump sum the price of the shoe including compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The above said amount be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the complainant will entitle to get interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 07.11.2017, till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

05.06.2018 Member President