Delhi

North East

CC/182/2016

KRISHNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIBERTY SHOES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 182/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Krishna S/o Shri Shambhunath R/o H.No. 35/2 Khasra No. 274/228/173 Village Wazirabad, Delhi-110084.	Complainant
	Versus
	The Liberty Shoes Limited Through its Authorized Representative Retail Division 2FBA Bhajanpura Shop No. C-15-/6, Ground Floor Near Hanuman Mandir, Delhi-110053.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

14.07.2016 04.09.2018 04.09.2018

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that on 13.03.2016, he had approached to OP for purchasing one pair of shoes and selected a brand “Fortune” and on enquiry from OP it was disclosed that the cost of the said pair is Rs. 2500/- and the representative of OP assured the complainant that the selected shoes brand is a very good product and also durable. The complainant thereafter paid   Rs. 2500/- in cash vide retail invoice no. 8452 dated 13.03.2016 for the purchase of the same. However to the utter shock of the complainant, just after 2 days of purchase, sole of the said pair of shoes got torn off for which he immediately contacted the OP, which in turn received back the shoes and advised the complainant to come after three days. The complainant had to purchase a pair of slippers costing Rs. 500/-, due to the torn shoes which was unnecessary burden on him. After three days, when the complainant again approached the OP for replacement of the shoes, the OP refused to replace the same. Thereafter the complainant got a legal notice dated 31.03.2016 issue to OP for refund of the sale consideration alongwith interest after receipt of which the complainant called up the OP several times but the OP the OP failed to replace the said torn shoes. Therefore the complainant, feeling harassed by the OP with mental tension and agony was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum against the OP praying for issuance of directions to the OP to refund the cost of defective shoes i.e. Rs. 2500/- + cost of slippers i.e. Rs. 500/- alongwith bank rate of interest. It has been further prayed by the complainant to this Forum to direct the OP to compensate the loss suffered by him to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation cost.

The complainant has attached copy of retail invoice dated 13.03.2016 for a sum of Rs. 2500/- for purchase of ‘Fortune’ shoes, photograph of a shoe with sole coming off, and a copy of legal notice dated 31.03.2016 with postal receipts.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 05.08.2016 for appearance before this Forum on 06.09.2016 and the same was received by the OP on 23.08.2016. However despite service, OP failed to appeared before this Forum on subsequent dates and vide order 20.09.2016, the OP was therefore proceeded against ex-parte.
3. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant on 27.10.2016 and 06.12.2016 respectively reiterating his grievance in the complaint.   
4. The complainant did not appear in year 2017 – 2018 till the last date of hearing. We have thoroughly perused the documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant and have gone through the written arguments as well. The picture filed by the complainant of a shoe nowhere shows of depicts the logo of Liberty brand endorsed either on the inner heel or behind the sole and therefore it cannot be determined conclusively whether it is the same pair of shoes which is the subject matter of dispute regardless of non rebuttal by OP due to its absence from the proceedings.
5. We therefore are of the considered view that the complainant has been unsuccessful in placing evidentiary document to prove or establish a case of deficiency of service on the part of OP beyond reasonable doubt and therefore we dismiss the present complaint as being devoid of merits and lacking sufficient / cogent proof with no order as to costs.
6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on  04.09.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member