BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 72 of 2017
Date of Institution : 28.3.2017
Date of Decision : 15.01.2018.
Mahavir Sharma son of Shri Hem Raj Sharma, resident of A-Block, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Liberty Shoes Centre through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory Sadar Bazaar, Sirsa.
2. Liberty Shoe Company, Head office at Liberty House, liberty Road, Post Box No.103, Karnal (Haryana) through its Managing Director/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Manik Mehta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased one pair of liberty shoes of the costs of Rs.1190/- from opposite party no.1 vide bill No.4114 dated 15.3.2016 with full guarantee of one year against any kind of defect including the colouring quality of the shoes. Thereafter, the complainant was shocked to detect that the colour of the shoes has been faded/ changed and the same has been rendered as very ugly and on detecting the said defect in the shoes he was mentally shocked and then immediately approached the op no.1 being the authorized distributor of op no.2 and complained about the said defect in the shoes as the defect in the shoes is only because of manufacturing defect therein. It is further averred that on noticing the defects in the shoes as complained by complainant, the op no.1 was also shocked and surprised how it happened and also received the defective shoes from the complainant and also assured him that as the defect in the shoes is due to manufacturing quality, hence definitely the complainant would get the replacement of the shoes with new one of the same model from op no.2 otherwise they would refund the cost of the shoes to the complainant. The op no.1 also assured the complainant that the grievances of the complainant would be redressed by op no.1 within a short period. It is further averred that after lapse of sufficient period when the complainant approached the op no.1 and asked about the new pair of the shoes then the op no.1 put off the matter of replacement by making lame excuse and also asked the complainant to wait for next one month period. However, till today the grievance of the complainant have not been redressed even despite legal notice dated 7.2.2017. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is neither maintainable nor sustainable in the present form because the perusal/reading of the memorandum of complaint itself depicts that the present complaint is not outcome of any consumer dispute rather it shows the egoist and blackmailing conduct of the complainant. The person like the complainant who misused the respected laws in furtherance of his own wrongs/ego should be actually punished and that complainant has filed the complaint simply stating the manufacturing defect in the branded shoe of the company but failed to annex any report of expert to prove the fact that the alleged defect is the manufacturing defect in the product. However, it is submitted that the said shoe bearing article No.9906-05 is the oldest and having most sale product of the company and the dealership of company has not received even a single complaint of the product from any other consumer. It is further submitted that due reply of the notice was sent to the complainant but the complainant has stated white lie that no reply to the notice has been received by complainant. On merits, it is submitted that shoes has been purchased by the complainant during the promotion sale subject to 30% off on the MRP of product and the conditions stipulated thereon which have been specifically laid down in the bill. According to the specific condition in the bill, there was/is no warranty on the product purchased during the promotion sale and only three months warranty is provided on the product when the same is purchased in regular sale and the said warranty is applied only when there is manufacturing defect in the product. More so, the warranty on the company product is according to company rules and the same cannot be modified by the dealer, hence the question of any such assurance given by the replying op does not arise at all. It is further submitted that the fading of colour as alleged by complainant is result of lack of maintenance, non polishing, rough use of shoes etc. which cannot be said as manufacturing defect in the product. The complainant before filing the complaint never approached the replying op. The shoes are in possession of complainant and same have never been handed over to the replying op and in case the same would have been handed over to the replying op, then there must be receipt thereof bearing signature of replying op. Non production of any such document also falsify the case of complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Initially, opposite party no.2 also appeared through Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Advocate and sought various opportunities for filing written statement but did not file the same and ultimately learned counsel made a statement that he has no further instructions from op no.2 and since no other representative of op no.2 appeared, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.11.2017.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.RW1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It is proved fact on record that complainant purchased a pair of shoes from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.1190/- on 15.3.2016. Though during the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that there is manufacturing defect in the shoes of complainant but, however the record reveals that complainant has not placed on record any report of expert in order to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the shoes. Moreover, it is undisputed fact between the parties that shoes had been purchased by complainant during the promotion sale subject to 30% off on the MRP of product and the conditions stipulated thereon, which have been specifically laid down in the bill and this fact also finds mention in the deposition of Sh. Suraj Bhan Garg, proprietor of op no.1 in his affidavit Ex.RW1. The only claim which remains to be decided is qua the fact that the colour of the shoes has been faded/ changed and said Sh. Suraj Bhan has deposed in his affidavit that they believe in maintaining the goodwill and on receipt of the legal notice, replied and asked the complainant that through the product is out of warranty period, yet they would try their best to re-colour the shoes through the service centre of company at Karnal.
7. So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to arrange for re-colouring of the shoes of the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of production of shoes by the complainant and we also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:15.1.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
