Haryana

StateCommission

A/127/2017

SANDEEP SHEORAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIBERTY SHOES - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                First Appeal No.           :         127 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution        :         02.02.2017

                                                Date of Decision                   :         12.07.2017

 

 

Sandeep Sheoran aged about 33 years son of Sh. Bhupinder Singh r/o Village Titani, Tehsil & Distt. Bhiwani (Haryana).

 

          …… Appellant.

 

Versus

 

1. The Proprietor, Liberty Shoes Limited, Retail Division 3 HBL, Opposite Chugh Hospital, Meham Road, Bhiwani (Haryana).
2. The Head/Manager, Liberty House, Liberty Road, Karnal- Haryana

 

……. Respondents.

 

CORAM:             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Presiding Member.

 

Present:              Mr. Sandeep Sheoran, counsel for the appellant.

                             Respondent No. 1 & 2 exparte.

 

O R D E R

 

 

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

                             The present appeal has been decided by me in view of the order passed by Hon’ble President of the State Commission conveyed to me vide Endst. No. 444 dated 03.03.2017 whereby I have been authorized to decide the cases individually in Additional Bench-II.

                             This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by appellant/complainant against the respondents/OPs has been allowed.  It was observed by the Learned District Forum as under:-                    

          “We allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay Rs.1500/- against the old defective shoes of the complainant.  The complainant is directed to deliver the old defective shoes to the OP No.1 and the Ops are directed to pay Rs.1500/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of delivery of shoes.”

                             The brief facts of the case are that on 07.03.2016 complainant-Sandeep Sheoran had purchased shoes of liberty company  amounting to Rs.1270/- from OP No.1/Respondent which was damaged after 4-5 days from purchase.  Complainant visited many times to the showroom of OP No.1 and requested to change the damaged shoes but no avail.  He also got served a legal notice to OPs but no reply was given. This act of the Op amount to deficiency in service on its part.

                             Upon notice OPs/ respondents failed to come present.  Hence they were proceeded against exparte.  

                             On appraisal of the pleadings of the complainant and evidence adduced on record, the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and observed as noticed in the opening para of this order.

Aggrieved with the impugned order, appellant-complainant has come up in appeal.  Hence this appeal.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of respondents.  I did not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely, and therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal and going through the case file.

I have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file thoroughly.

The learned counsel for appellant/complainant has contended that District Forum has failed to appreciate that the appellant had deprived of after sales service as well as he has suffered unnecessary harassment from the respondents as they have sold a defective product to him and then they have refused to replace it.  Learned counsel for complainant has submitted he has purchased the liberty shoes from respondent/OP No.1 which was manufactured by respondent/OP No.2  for a sum of Rs.1270/- and produced bill Annexure P-2, copy of legal notice dated 22.03.2016 Annexure P-3, postal receipts Annexure P-4.  The respondents did not bother to appear and contest the claim of appellant.  Learned counsel has further contended that the District Forum has awarded only Rs.1500/- against the old defective shoes but has not granted him compensation to the tune of legal expenses as well as for harassment and prayed for enhancement in compensation.

I have gone through the impugned order and taken into consideration facts and circumstances of the case as well as record of the District Forum it is clear that respondents/Ops have committed deficiency in services.  District Forum has not granted compensation for harassment and legal expenses to the appellant/complainant.

In view of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order is modified with the direction to the opposite parties/respondents to pay Rs.5000/- for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.

The impugned order is modified on the terms indicated above and there is no reason to disturb the other amount.

With this modification, the appeal is disposed of.

                                      

Announced                                                                                 Diwan Singh Chauhan,

12.07.2017                                                                      Presiding Member

                                                                                 Addl. Bench-IInd