Haryana

Panchkula

CC/237/2021

RAKESH KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEHARBANI FOOTWEARS. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	237 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	17.05.2021
Date of Decision	:	21.11.2022

 

 

Sh.Rakesh Kumar, s/o Late Sh. Ascharaj Lal #1598, Sector-15, Panchkula.

 

                                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

Meharbani Footwears, SCO-21, Sector-19-C, Chandigarh.

….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.  

                        Sh. Vishal Garg, Advocate for OP.

                         

ORDER

(Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 12.04.2021 the complainant bought kid boy  shoes worth Rs.399/- and two pairs of heels worth Rs.2,998/- but when they came back home, they found that the kid boy shoes were defective having a hole in one of them. The complainant doesn’t go back to replace the shoes that day because there was night curfew in Chandigarh during that timing. It is stated that next day, the complainant went there to replace the shoes but they refused to replace it. The complainant asked the OP that he wanted to replace the shoe and not want to refund but the OP refused the request of the complainant. Due to the act and conduct of OP, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss, mental agony and harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objection qua complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the complainant had never visited to showroom/OP regarding the complaint of Kid Boy Shoes of Rs.399/- and if there is any complaint in shoes then we definitely replace it. It is also stated that the complainant had purchased the shoes after proper satisfaction with try wearing to the Kids who also came to the showroom on 12.04.2021, at that time there was nothing defect in the shoes. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A along with Annexure R-1 to R-2 and closed the evidence.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant has placed on record the photocopy of one shoe of Kid boy, which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ for the adjudication of the controversy in a proper and fair manner.

4.             We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP and gone through the entire record available on file including the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for OP, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that the OP had sold a defective piece of Kid boy shoes to him vide bill amounting to Rs.399/-(Annexure C-1). It is contended that the OP declined his request to replace the defective kid boy shoes without any justification and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as prayed for in the complaint.

6.             The OP has contested the complaint on several grounds. Regarding the main  issue i.e. defect in the Kid Boy shoes in question as sold to the complainant vide bill Annexure C-1, it is contended that there was no defect in the Kid Boy Shoes as alleged at the time of sale to the complainant. The learned counsel reiterated the averments made in the written statement as also in the affidavit Annexure R-A contended that the specific pair of baby shoes, which was selected by the complainant after his complete satisfaction and proper verification of the shoes, was sold to the complainant. Refuting the contentions of the complainant, the learned counsel inviting our attention towards the discrepancies qua the alleged date of sale of kid boy shoes to the complainant and his visit thereafter, asserted that the complainant has filed a false, baseless and frivolous complaint and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed.  

7.             Having perused the photocopy of one shoe of Kid boy shoe Mark ‘A’, it is found that there is an apparent defect on the front upper portion of the shoe, which requires no further evidence and corroboration to establish the defect in the shoes. In view of the apparent defect in the kid shoe, it was imperative upon the OP to send the pair of the kid shoes to its manufacturer so as to seek expert opinion qua the alleged manufacturing defect. However, the OP preferred not to seek any expert report from the manufacturer of the shoes for the reasons best known to it. Therefore, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the OP. Further, we can’t afford to overlook the fact that the complainant did not raise any kind of objection qua the quality of two lady footwear as purchased by him from OP vide Bill(Annexure C-2/R-1) amounting to Rs.2,898/- In our considered opinion, there was no reason on the part of the complainant to allege a false claim qua the sale of Kid shoe amounting to Rs.399. It is not the case of the OP that the complainant had any ill-will or any ill intention towards it. Therefore, we find force and substance in the contentions of the complainant that the OP had sold a defective pair of Kid boy Shoes to him; hence OP was deficient while rendering service to the complainant.

8.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1.     The OP is directed to make the payment of Rs.399/-to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. filing of the complaint till its realization.
2.     The OP is directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

 

9.               The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:21.11.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal         

           Member                          Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini                         

                                              Member