Complainant Amrik Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) to seek a direction to the opposite party either to replace the defective shoes with new one or to refund Rs.2700/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of due till its actual realization in his favour. Opposite party is further sought to be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a pair of Lee Cooper Shoes amounting to Rs.2700/- on 19.8.2014 vide receipt no.13324. One year guarantee on the said shoes was also given to him. He has next pleaded that soon after the purchase of said shoes, the pasting of shoes became out of order and there became cracks in the owner part “Sole” of the Shoes. He was so stunned by seeing this and he immediately rushed towards the shop of the opposite party and requested him to replace the shoes with new one being shoes is defective one having manufacturing defect, but the opposite party instead of listening his legal and genuine request has given filthy abuses to him and defamed him publicly at large in the presence of the other customers by saying that he has purchased the shoes for a meager amount of Rs.2700/- and claim replacement. He further openly proclaiming that he even did not replace the shoes worth amounting to Rs.5000/- and more than that amount. He has suffered lot of harassment and physical agony from the hands of the opposite party due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite party. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who has appeared through their counsel and filed written reply taking the preliminary objections that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The manufacturer shoe company has not been impleaded as one of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone; the complainant has not approached to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts in the complaint; the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, it was submitted that when the complainant came to the shop of the opposite party he was asked to contact the manufacturer on its customer care number and thereafter the disputed pair of shoes would be sent to the manufacturer company for its repair. The opposite party is still ready to make the necessary repair if any in the shoes only to provide the service to the customer. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.    Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other document Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.  

5.       Uma Mehta, Proprietor of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.                We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that there has been no commitment of replacement of shoes by the OP vendor and the manufacturer has neither been made a party to the present complaint nor any manufacturing defect has been attempted to be proved on records. However, the OP vendor has claimed to have been ever & always ready to repair the shoes and has also offered his services for necessary repairs as a gesture of good will towards his aggrieved customer/consumer. We, also find it a fit case for disposal by suitably directing the OP vendor to get the appropriate repairs etc to the complainant’s shoes to his satisfaction.

8.       In the light of the all above, we are inclined to dispose of the present complaint with the necessary directions to the complainant to deliver, within 10 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders, the ‘shoes’ in question to the OP vendor who in turn shall let the same undergo a good quality ‘complimentary repairs’ and deliver/return back the fully repaired shoes to the complainant within 7 days of their ‘receipt’ failing which the OP vendor shall replace and ‘deliver’ to the complainant new and fresh shoes of the same brand and quality. In case, the OP vendor fails to comply with the above orders even after receipt of repairable shoes within the prescribed period of time, he shall become liable to refund the full ‘billed’ amount of the shoes along with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation, to the complainant.   

9.           Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                     President     

ANNOUNCED:                                                          (Jagdeep Kaur)

July, 07, 2015.                                                            Member                   

*MK*