Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

Date of Order : 15.07.2015

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To give relief U/s Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant purchased a pair of shoes worth Rs. 430/- ( Rs. Four Hundred Thirty only ) on 11.04.2012 from Shree Leather, Shashi Complex, Dak Banglow Road Branch. The purchase receipt dated 11.04.2012 is also Annaxed herewith.
2. On 13.04.2012 problem seems to be occurred in the base ( sole ) of the shoe.
3. The complainant approached the owner of the said shop in regard to the said problem. The opposite party no. 1 ignorantly answered to the complainant that “ Aadmi ki Gaurantee Nahi Hai Aap Juton ki Guarantee lekar aaye hai, yeh sab bakwas hai ”.
4. The opposite party no. 1 said to the complainant that we deal with shoes only not with the quality and said get the shoes and go.
5. The complainant got mental and physical harassment from the arrogant behaviour of the opposite party no. 1.

When the Registered Notice sent to opposite party no. 1 did not returned, then vide order dated 08.01.2013 the service on opposite party no. 1 was declared to be valid and opposite party no. 1 was directed to file written statement.

When opposite party no. 1 did not appeared in this case despite service of the notice referred above the case was directed to be heard ex – parte.

It is the case of the complainant that on 11.04.2012 he had purchased a pair of shoes from opposite party no. 1 after paying the price of Rs. 430/- ( Rs. Four Hundred Thirty only ) as will appear from Annexure – 1 to the complaint petition.

On 13.04.2012 he went to the opposite party no. 1 as the sole of the shoes were found to be defective as same was not pasted properly.

He requested the opposite party no. 1 either to repair or exchange the shoes but opposite party no. 1 did not pay any heed to his request and behaved in a rude manner.

As stated above as the opposite party no. 1 did not appear and file written statement hence we are bound to rely on the statement of complainant in toto for want of any counter version. It is worth mentioning that the fact asserted above clearly disclose the deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 1 and as such we hold accordingly.

From the discussion made above We direct the opposite party no. 1 to pay Rs. 430/- ( Rs. Four Hundred Thirty only ) being price of the shoe to complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of aforesaid will carry an interest @ 9% per annum till its payment. Prior to that the complainant will have to return the old shoes.

We further direct the opposite party no. 1 to pay Rs. 3,000/- ( Rs. Three Thousand only ) to the complainant as composite charge for compensation and litigation costs within the aforesaid period of two months.

Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                        Member                                                         President