IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
Dated this the 30th Day of June 2022
Present: - Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B, President(I/C)
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.235/2020
S.Muraleedharan : Complainant
Sahyadri
Keralapuram, Perumpuzha P.O
Kollam-691504.
V/s
Manager : Opposite party
Brand Factory
(Division of future life style fashions Ltd.)
Kollam Branch
Surya Enclave
Kadappakkada, Kollam-691008.
FINAL ORDER
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B, President(I/C)
This is a case based on a complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant has purchased a rain coat from opposite party shop named ‘Brand Factory’ a retail shop operated by Future Group in March 2020 for Rs.2098/- after availing 50% discount offer while the actual price of the coat was Rs.3,999/-. He has purchased the same by believing the words of salesman, who has assisted the complainant in the shop that the coat is made up of genuine leather. Though he has purchased the rain coat in March 2020, its purpose would only be served in a rainy season. After the first 2-3 days of its use itself he could realize that it is not a leather coat but it is manufactured by inferior quality rexin and the leather type coating in the rain coat got damaged and there sustained several patches throughout the outer part of the coat. At that time the complainant verified the invoice bill and realized that the bill date was 20.12.2019 while it was purchased actually in March 2020. According to the complainant the opposite party cheated him by selling such a cheap quality product in high price. When the complainant approached the opposite party for intimating the said issue, opposite party responded that if there were any complaint with respect to the purchased product that would have been notified and informed within 30 days of purchase of the same, otherwise the opposite party would not be responsible for any of the damages caused to the product. When the complainant approached the opposite party second time by seeking reasonable remedy they have replied that they had not sold any rain coat to the complainant, but the jacket sold to him was only a fancy jacket. The above act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the circumstances the opposite party is directed to refund the price of the rain coat Rs.2098/- with a compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Hence the complaint.
Notice issued from the Commission was received by the opposite party but he didn’t appeared before this Commission. Hence opposite party set exparte.
Complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 to P3 series documents. Complainant was not ready to argue the matter hence taken up for orders.
Ext.P1 is the retail invoice bill dated 20.12.2019 for Rs.2098.96/- issued by opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant. Ext.P3 series three in numbers are photos of damaged rain coat.
The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 to P3 series documents would establish the case of the complainant. Ext.P1 evidencing that he had purchased the alleged raincoat on 20.12.2019 from the opposite party’s Kollam outlet of ‘Brand Factory’ a link of giant chain of retail stores operated by ‘Future Group’ for Rs.2098.96/- after the deduction of 50% offer. The complainant purchased the same by believing the words of the salesman of the shop that the particular item is made up of genuine leather and also attracted by the brand products of ‘Future Life Style Fashion Ltd.’. Ext.P3 series photographs reveal that 2-3 days of its use the leather type coating of the rain coat got peeled off and there formed several patches here and there on the outer part of the same and which would indicate that the raincoat has become defective within a few days of its use and gradually the outer coating completely damaged. Thus the only purpose of protection from wetting became in vain even though the complainant has purchased the same by paying such an amount of Rs.2098.96/-.
It is pertinent to note that the opposite party did not take any effort to rectify the damage caused to the complainant but when the complainant approached them for seeking any remedy, they have replied that exchange of damaged product would only be effected within 30 days from the date of its purchase.
It is further to be noticed that the product purchased by the complainant is a rain coat, quality of the same can be checked only when it will be used in rainy season and the complainant could realized the fact that it was only a substandard one when it was used by him in the rainy season. But the opposite party is well aware that the item sold by them was none other than a rain coat and it was purchased on 20.12.2019 and it would be used only when the rain comes. That any kind of damage with respect to a rain coat would be identified only when it is used while raining and here the alleged damage was identified by the complainant within 30 days of its actual use. From the complaint and chief affidavit produced it is evident that though the rain coat was purchased in 20th December 2019 the complainant used the same only when the rain arrived that is after March 2020, particularly in the rainy season.
In the circumstances it can be concluded that the alleged rain coat is damaged within 30 days of its actual use. Hence there exists deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. It is an established fact that the opposite party is under an obligation to keep the raincoat in a using condition atleast for a period of 12 months from the date of its purchase but the opposite parties failed to comply the obligation. Thus the opposite party is legally bound either to replace the damaged rain coat with a leather rain coat of the same price or to refund its value.
In view of the materials available on record we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in this deal and thereby the complainant has sustained mental agony apart from financial loss. Hence the complainant is entitled to get a defect free leather rain coat or price of the rain coat Rs.2098/- with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs Rs.1000/-
In the result the complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
- Opposite party is directed to issue a defect free leather rain coat of the same price or price of the rain coat Rs.2098- to the complainant.
- Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony sustained.
- Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as costs of the proceedings.
Opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.4098/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of purchase of the defective rain coat with cost Rs.1000/- from his assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 30th day of June 2022.
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
(President I/C)
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1: Retail invoice bill dated 20.12.2019 for Rs.2098.69/-.
Ext.P2: Copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant.
Ext.P3: Photos of damaged rain coat(3 No’s)
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
(President I/C)
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
