Orissa

Cuttak

CC/113/2020

Sidharth Sinha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Woodland India - Opp.Party(s)

self

23 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.113/2020

 

Sidhartha Sinha,

   At:Baghamangala Lane,

      P.O/P.S:Mangalabag,Cuttck,Odisha-753001.                             ... Complainant.

 

                                   Vrs.

1.           Managing Director,

     Woodland India,

           Aero Club(Woodland India) Head Office,

          2168 Gurudwara Road, Opp. Post Office,

          New Deli-110005,Delhi,India.

 

2.        Manager, Customer Care,

        Aero Club(Woodland India) Head Office,

2168 Gurudwara Road, Opp. Post Office,

 New Deli-110005,Delhi,India.

                                             

3.        Store Manager,Aero Club(Woodland India),

        Bhubaneswar,Ashok Nagar,

        Plot No.135,Ashok Nagar,

         Bhubaneswar-751009,Khurda,Ldisha,India.

 

4.         Store Manager,Aero Club(Woodland India),

         Cuttack Cantonment Road,

          Opp. TanishqShowroom,Cuttack-753001,

    Odisha,India.                                                                ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                   Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:      16.12.2020

Date of Order:    23.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Self.

For the O.Ps       :          Mr. S.K.Khandai(A/R).

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.    

                                                 

               Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased two men’s wear Jacket alongwith a cap on 7.1.2020 from Woodland Shopping Mall at Bhubaneswar.  At his home he noticed that there was manufacturing defect visible on the product which was restitched for which he had taken the same to the Woodland Showroom at Cuttack on 10.10.20 but there he was advised to go to the shop room where from he had purchased those.  The complainant had made telephonic conversations with the Woodland Showroom at Ashoknagar,Bhubaneswar as well as at Cuttack and had sent mails also to that effect.  He had carried his defective jacket to the Woodland Showroom at Bhubaneswar one day, subsequently.The Store Manager refused to accept the same.  The Store Manager had called him one Monday but as he was not available since because his working place was at Koraput; for which  he had sent the product through postal service to the said Store Manager of Woodland at Ashoknagar,Bhubaneswar.  But some days thereafter he was replied that the defect was due to wear and tear and not due to any manufacturing defect.  So ultimately after sending legal notices, the complainant has come up with this case against all the four O.Ps alleging against them about their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by them for which he has suffered financial loss with mental agony and has thereby claimed to be refunded an amount of Rs.3177/- towards the jacket together with a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

   He has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.            The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  According to the O.Ps, the defects as pointed out by the complainant in the purchased products of him were not there at the time of sale and the complainant had checked those infront of the store staff before purchasing those.  According to the O.Ps, when the said jacket was inspected by them subsequently on being sent by the complainant, the defect appeared to be through any sharp object, like the sharp edges of a ring or bangles or any kind of such similar products.  Thus, according to the O.Ps, the said restitching was not before sale but was done subsequently which has been suppressed by the complainant who has not approached with clean hands. Hence, according to the O.Ps, the case is liable to be dismissed.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments of the complaint petition and the contents of written version, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps& if there was practice of any unfair trade by the O.Ps ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being the pertinent one is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

   Admittedly, as per the complaint petition, the complainant had purchased a jacket shirt and a cap from Woodland Shopping Mall at Bhubaneswar on 7.1.20.  He had noticed certain defects and had complained about restitching of the jacket on 10.10.20.  As it appears from the complaint petition that he had complained through G.Mail about the defect in the jacket on 11.1.20 vide Annexure-2A.  Thereafter e.mail communications were exchanged in between the complainant and the O.Ps and ultimately, the complainant had to file this case.  It is the contention of the complainant that the restitching of the Jacket was noticed by him subsequently at his house but the O.Ps differ from him by saying that there was no restitching of the jacket prior to the sale and that the complainant had verified the said articles prior to purchasing those.  Be that as it may, the product was purchased by the complainant on 7.1.20 but the complainant was lodged by him through mail on 11.1.20.  It would have been better that if the products purchased by the complainant would have been verified then and there and the defect could have been pointed out by him immediately or else immediately after the purchase.  When the complainant is paying such a huge amount of money  for purchasing those articles from a branded showroom like Woodland, he should have tried and verified those and in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, this Commission comes to an irresistible conclusion by leaning upon maxim “Caveat Emptor” which goes to show that the buyer should have been aware and should have verified the product when he fails to prove that the preponderance of probabilities that the restitching was there prior to his purchase in the said product.  Accordingly, this issue does not go in favour of the complainant as because this Commission fails to notice any deficiency in service or practice of unfair trade by the O.Ps.

Issues no.i& iii.

                   From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the  complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

ORDER

            Case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 23^rd day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                           Member