BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint No.79/17.

Date of instt.: 17.03.2017. 

                                                 Date of Decision:03.11.2017.

Maninder s/o Shri Jaipal, aged 23 years, r/o near Main Bazaar, Ramlila Chowk, Rajound, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

Luxmi Fashion World, Ambala Road, Allahabad Bank, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Before:           Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.              

Present :         Smt. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri R.K. Ranga, Adv. for the Op.

                     ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                     The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a shoes article No.B79153, size No.9 & Tin No.06122109057 for a sum of Rs.3399/- from Op vide Bill No.10406 dt. 20.12.2016. It is alleged that after some days, the sole and pasting of the sole was damaged. It is further alleged that he deposited his shoes with Op but the Op did not remove the defect. This way, the Op is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, Op appeared before this forum and filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that complainant never made any contact with the Op nor made any complaint regarding the facts as alleged in the complaint; that when there is no defect in the shoes, so the question of remove the defect in the shoes does not arise. The rest of contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; document Ex.C1 and closed evidence on 04.08.2017. On the other hand, Op. tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Ex.RA to Ex.RD and closed evidence on 09.10.2017.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased a shoes article No.B79153 for a sum of Rs.3399/- from Op vide Bill No.10406 dt. 20.12.2016 with three months warranty. According to the allegations of the complainant, after some days the shoes in question were totally damaged as well as the pasting of the sole damaged within warranty period. It is further alleged by the complainant that he deposited the shoes with Op on 03.02.2017 to remove the said defects, but the Op did not remove the said defect, rather prolonging the matter on one pretext or other. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and bill as Ex.C1. On the other hand, the Op has failed to prove on the file that the defects of the shoes in question were removed by him. According to bill Ex.C1, the complainant purchased the shoes in question on 20.12.2016. The bottom of said bill is having terms & conditions of the shoes. As per term & condition No.3, 3 months Pasting Warranty of the shoes in question. The complainant filed the complaint before this Forum on 17.03.2016, after a gap of about four months, which means that shoes in question were damaged within the warranty period. So, we found force in the contention of ld. counsel for the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the shoes in question of the complainant were damaged within warranty period and the same were neither repaired nor replaced by the Op. Hence, the Op is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.   

6.     Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against the Op and direct the Op to replace the defective shoes of the complainant with new one of the same article and size, as purchased by the complainant vide Bill/Cash Memo No.10406 dated 20.12.2016. However, it is made clear that if the said shoes as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Op, then the Op shall refund Rs.3399/- as the cost of shoes to the complainant. The Op is also burdened with costs of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.03.11.2017.         (Harisha Mehta),            (Rajbir Singh),

                               Member.                    Presiding Member.

Present :        Smt. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                     Shri R.K. Ranga, Adv. for the Op.

                     Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even date, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

Dated:03.11.2017.             Member            Presiding Member.