Manita Rani filed a consumer case on 12 Feb 2015 against Manager, Bharat Enterprises in the Gurgaon Consumer Court. The case no is CC/180/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 15 Apr 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No.180 of 2013 Date of Institution: 05.06.2013 Date of Decision: 12.02.2015
Manita Rani D/o Sh. Mahavir Singh R/o H.No.338/8 Behind Super Bakery Jacumpura Police Station City Tehsil and District Gurgaon Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus
Manager Bharat Enterprises Naya Bazar Jacumbpura Near Jain Mandir Gurgaon Haryana.
….Opposite party.
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.RAGHVINDER SINGH BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person
OP expate
ORDER R.S.BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.
The complainant alleged that she has purchased a pair of shoes stated to be of Liberty Company with brand name SPICY-GIRL from the OP for a sum of Rs.800-/ after discount vide Bill No.329 dated 24.05.2013 (C-1). It is further alleged that shoes were of not good quality and it became defective very soon from its purchase and thus, the OP has cheated her by selling defective shoes stated to be of Liberty Company though it were not of the Liberty Company. She visited OP to replace the defective shoes but he flatly refused to replace the same. Thus, the OP is deficient in providing services to the complainant. She prayed that she is entitled to refund of the price of the shoes besides compensation and litigation expenses. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents referred above.
2 Notice of the complaint was given to the OP. OP however failed to turn up despite service and was proceeded exparte on 26.08.2013.
3 We have heard the complainant and appraised the material on record carefully. As per Bill No.329 dated 24.05.2013 the complainant has purchased a pair of shoes from the OP stated to be of Liberty Company for a sum of Rs.800/- after discount (C-1). The complainant has alleged that it became defective very soon from its purchase and thus, she has taken the same to the OP for their replacement but he has refused to replace the same with new one. However, the shoes were within the Warranty period as the Bill itself shows ” Warranty for repair only for three months”. Thus, the shoes became defective within the Warranty period of three months though it is only for repair. The OP, however, failed to rebut the claim of the complainant. Thus, the OP is deficient in providing services to the complainant.
4 Thus, she is entitled to replacement of the shoes in question with new one or refund of its price Rs.800/- from the OP. She has been harassed by the OP causing mental agony and thus, she is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.1500/-.
Compliance be made within 30 days.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.
Pronounced in open court.
Dated: 12.02.2015.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.