COMPLAINT FILED ON:30.06.2011
DISPOSED ON:29.11.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
29th DAY OF NOVEMBER-2011
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | A.Hanumanthappa S/o Late.Ajjanayaka, Aged about 59 years, R/at.No.4096, 14th Main Road, Rajajinagar, 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 021. Advocate: Sri. C.N.Krishna Reddy. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Liberty, Exclusive Show Room, Naruson Sales Malleshwaram, Situaated at No.96, 7th Cross, Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003. Agent:Surya Prakash. In person. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT.
The complainant filed this complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and to award costs of the proceedings.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-
On 31.10.2010 the complainant visited OP Showroom and purchased the pair of shoes by paying an amount of Rs.1,381/- and obtained the bill as per document No.1. Subsequently, the complainant come across the fact that the shoes purchased is not that of the Liberty Company. He took the shoes along with bill of OP on 31.01.2011 and told OP that the shoes sold is duplicate goods and the same is not manufactured by the Liberty Company. OP accepted that the bill is issued by them. However, they told that they have not sold the said shoes. The complainant insisted to take back the shoes and to return the amount. OP refused to comply the demand. Thus it is alleged that OP not only provided a duplicate goods but also abused the complainant which caused serious damage to the status and reputation of the complainant. Further by abusing the complainant, OP has exposed the complainant to suffer from mental agony. On the same day i.e., on 31.01.2011 the complainant got issued demand notice to OP to take back the shoes and to return the amount and to pay damages amounting to Rs.25,000/-. OP has not issued any reply nor paid the damages. Hence the complaint felt deficiency in service and was advised to file this complaint.
3. On appearance, OP filed version contending that the complainant has abused the process of law and has tried to indulge the OP in false prosecution as OP has never supplied shoes in question to the complainant. OP is an authorized and Exclusive Showroom of Liberty and cannot sell any other shoes from this outlet. Complainant has purchased pair of shoes from OP-Company and the bill is concerned to that matter and bill is of OP Show Room. At the time of purchasing the shoes, the complainant has physically verified this fact and the shoes which he has purchased of Liberty Company only. The OP has never sold out shoes which are not manufactured by Liberty Shoes. The product of Liberty is duly identified and recognized by name of Liberty affixed and pasted on the “SOLE” then on the “BOTTOM” and on “INSOLE” also. Further the product of Liberty contain in Liberty box, Liberty carry bag, Liberty tag and Liberty paper rapper. The article name/number also printed on the back toe of the shoe and while making online invoice it reflects as article name, colour, size and MRP on the customer invoice also. Any product which does not bear the mark of Liberty is never be a product of Liberty nor it could be sold on the Liberty exclusive Showroom. So far using of abusing language is concerned it is just an allegation to make the present complaint more healthy. The complainant has not suffered any loss to his reputation, mental agony and pain as he has purchased shoes from somewhere else and trying to get replacement some shoes from Liberty Showroom which is not possible. The subject which has been produced by complainant is of some other local manufacture because “Liberty Brand name neither printed on Sole nor insole as produced by the complaint”, so it is very much clear to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence, OP got filed affidavit of one Virender Narwal in support of the defence version.
5. Arguments on both sides heard.
6. In view of the above said facts the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
Point No.2:-If so, whether the complainant is
entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No.3:-To What order?
7. We record our findings on the above points are:
Point No.1:-Negative
Point No.2:-Negative
Point No.3:-As per final order.
R E A S O N S
8. OP is Liberty exclusive Showroom. The complainant purchased pair of Shoes from OP Showroom on 31.10.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.1,381/-, the document No1 is the bill issued by OP. The complainant claims that the pair of shoes sold by OP was not Liberty Company shoes, the same was not manufactured by Liberty Company, the same was a duplicate shoes, hence he had taken the shoes for exchange to OP on 31.01.2011, but OP has not accepted the same. The complainant claims that the bill issued is admittedly of OP Liberty Showroom but the shoes purchased from that Showroom are not of original product of the Company, OP has abused him in presence of the customer and his friends, as a result he lost reputation and suffered mental agony. Hence he is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
9. The complainant brought the pairs of shoes and produced before this Forum, OP after examining the same stated that the said pair of shoes is not sold to the complainant. The complainant at the time of purchasing the shoes verified the label of the Company and purchased the same. The shoes now produced are not bearing any Company label hence the complainant has produced some other shoes but not of the shoes purchased on that day.
10.It may be noted that the pair of shoes stated to have been purchased on 31.10.2010, nearly after 3 months use, the complainant had taken the same for exchange on 31.01.2011. In case if the shoes sold by OP were not of Company Brand shoes, nothing prevented the complainant to take the same immediately seeking for replacement or return of the amount paid. OP Company as per affidavit evidence deals with only products of Liberty and not any other of products. We are unable to accept that the shoes which the complainant has produced at the time of hearing, were the shoes sold on that day by OP. OP is accepting that the document No.1 bill is issued by them for having sold the pair of shoes to the complainant. The pair of shoes which now complainant claims to have purchased and produced are not the shoes purchased from OP Company. There is no reason for OP-Company to sell some other products in this exclusive Showroom. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP or unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled for any of the relief’s claimed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 29th day of November-2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
