O R D E R.

By Sri. A.S. Subhagan,  Member:

          This is a complaint preferred under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

          2. On 04.11.2019  the Complainant had purchased  a Chappal  (Foot wear ) for a sum of Rs.2,500/-  from the Opposite Party.  At the time of purchase, the staff of the Opposite Party made the Complainant  to believe that it was a good quality product and it will last for a long period.  Believing the statements of the staff of the Opposite Party,  the Complainant had purchased it paying the amount.  But,  when the Complainant used the foot wears for three or four  times,  the thread  in the  chappal  tore off and the leather parts came out and so,  in the month of  December  itself,  the  Complainant contacted the Opposite Party for replacing it.  But Instead of replacing the chappal,  they repaired  the same by stitching it.  But  after one month,  the thread again tore off and the same complaint again repeated and so the Complainant could not  use the chappal.  This matter  was again informed to the Opposite Party and requested to replace the same.  The Opposite Party had sold low quality product to the Complainant and refused to replace the chappal which  amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and unscrupulous  exploitation of the Complainant within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.  Even though  the Complainant sent a lawyer notice to the Opposite Party demanding the value of the chappal and compensation,  the Opposite Party neither sent a reply nor paid back the amount.  Hence the Complainant has approached the Commission with this complaint  containing the following prayers.

1. To direct the Opposite Party to refund Rs.2,500/-   towards the value of   the chappal.
2. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/-  as compensation.
3. To direct  the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 5,000/-  as cost of this complaint and
4. To grand  such other or further relief deems fit to grand.

3. The complaint was registered and  notice was served on the Opposite

Party for appearance.  The Opposite Party appeared before the Commission and filed version.

          4. Contents of  version  in brief:-  The Complainant had purchased a foot wear  of Rs.2,500/-  on 04.11.2019 from the Opposite Party.  It is not true that the Opposite Party made the Complainant to believe that the said  footwear was a good quality product  and it would  last for  a long period.  The Complainant  voluntarily came to the shop of the Opposite Party and purchased the said footwear.  As mentioned in the Complaint,  the Complainant on using the footwear for three or four times,  the thread  in the  chappal tore off and the leather parts came out is not true.  If the footwear tore off and the leather parts came out are only because of the chappal soaking  wet.  The Complainant had contacted the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party had repaired it and had given it to the Complainant within two weeks.  Thereafter,  the Complainant had not referred the matter and contacted the Opposite Party for anything  other than this complaint.  Moreover,  the Opposite Party has his own terms and conditions.  All other allegations of the Complaint are denied by the Opposite Party.

          5. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant and Exts.A1, A2 and M.O  were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1.  Chief affidavit was also filed by the Opposite Party and Ext.B1 was marked from his side and he was examined as OPW1. 

          6. Considering the complaint, version,  affidavit, documents marked and the oral depositions adduced by the Complainant and the Opposite Party,  we raised the following points for consideration.

1.  Whether there has been unfair trade practice /deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party?
2. If so, whether  the Complainant is entitled to get compensation  as prayed for?.
3. If so,  whether the Complainant  is  entitled to get cost of this complaint?

7.  Point No.1:-  It is the admitted fact that the Complainant had purchased a

chappal for Rs.2,500/-  from the Opposite Party on 04.09.2019.  It is  also admitted that after using the chappal for three or four times,  the thread  in the chappal tore off and  the Opposite Party had repaired it and had given it back to the Complainant,  instead of replacing it, as demanded by the Complainant.  The  allegation of the Complainant is that   on repeating  the  Complaint again, though the Complainant had contacted and informed about the defects to replace the  chappal,  the Opposite Party hesitated to replace it.  But the Opposite Party contents that the Complainant had not referred  the matter and contacted the Opposite Party for anything  other than this Complaint.   But Ext.A2, which is the  lawyer notice dated 13.03.2020,  reveals that the Complainant had intimated the Opposite Party his grievance for  which the Opposite Party had neither responded nor paid  back the money as demanded.   So,  the allegation of the Opposite Party that the Complainant had not referred the matter to him for anything than this Complaint is   proved untrue.  Another contention of the Opposite Party  that the  chappal was damaged as it was soaked in  water is denied  by the Complainant.  In oral evidence the Opposite Party has deposed the following  “ R§-fpsS staff sNcp¸v KpW-ta-·-bp-f-f-Xm-sW¶v ]d-ªmWv hnän-«p-f-f-Xv.  t\m«okv In«n-b-Xn-\v-tijw sNcp¸v amän-s¡m-Sp-¡p-Itbm ]Ww Xncn¨v sImSp-¡p-Itbm sNbvXn-«n-Ã.  repair sNbvXp sImSp-¡mtd DÅq.  Replacement CÃ.  ‘90’ days BWv Warranty. ‘90’  Znh-k-¯n-\Iw ]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ R§sf kao-]n-¨n-cp-¶p ”.  From  the above deposition of the Opposite Party itself it is evident that the Complaint  of the chappal was repeated;  it was informed to the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party had not responded to it;  the chappal  was neither  repaired the second time during  warranty period  nor had replaced it with a new one by the Opposite Party.    In oral  evidence,  the Opposite Party has also  deposed that “sNcp-¸nsâ D]-tbmKw kw_-Ôn¨ terms and conditions Bill    sâ ]pd-In tcJ-s¸-Sp¯n \ÂIn-bn-«p-­v. B1,  ]cm-Xn-¡m-kv]-Z-amb sNcp-¸nsâ  bill AÔ.    Here, the Opposite Party has claimed that he has some terms and conditions  of his own as to the use of the chappal for which B1 bill was marked to support his contention.  At the same time,  he has admitted that B1 bill is not related to the chappal which was sold to the Complainant.  So,  the contention of the Opposite Party as to the terms and conditions relating to the chappal which was sold to the Complainant cannot be admitted.    The chappal was actually having  a cost of Rs.2,500/-  and as such it should be of a  good quality.  But within   three or four times of use,  it was got damaged and it repeated again,  which shows that  it was not of a  good quality product.  Regular or repeated complaint of a chappal within three or four times of  its use and not giving it repaired or not replacing the damaged chappal with a new one or not making refund of the price of the chappal by the seller amounts to unfair trade  practice/deficiency in service.  So,   here,  there has been unfair trade practice/deficiency  in service on the part of the Opposite Party for which the Opposite Party is liable.  Therefore,  point No.1 is proved in favour of   the Opposite Party.

          8.  Point No.2:-  As point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant,  he is entitled to get compensation.  But the Compensation claimed is very high for a

purchase amounting  to Rs.2,500/- .  So,  he is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,000/- .

          9. Point No.3:-  As point No.1 and 2 are proved in favour of the Complainant,  he is  entitled   get  cost of this complaint.  

          In the result,  the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party  is ordered:

1.  To replace  the damaged chappal with a new one having good quality of the same brand to the Complainant or to pay back Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand Five hundred only) being the purchase price of the chappal.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for unfair trade practice /deficiency in service.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of this complaint and
4. The Opposite Party shall have  the right to get back the MO1 (chappal) from  the Commission,  filing an application within one month after obeying the order.  Otherwise, destroy it.

The above orders shall be obeyed by the Opposite Party within one month

from the date of this order,  failing which the  above amounts will carry interest at the rate of  8% per annum. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27^th day of October 2022.

Date of filing :15.09.2020.

                                                          PRESIDENT :    Sd/-

                                                          MEMBER    :    Sd/-

                                                          MEMBER    :    Sd/-

  APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          Muhammed Iqubal.                  Complainant.       

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1.        Rashik. N.V.                                      Store Manager,

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.             Duplicate Tax Invoice.           

A2.             Legal Notice.                                     dt:13.03.2020.

MO1.          Chappal.        

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

B1.              Bill.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT :   Sd/-     

                                                                             MEMBER      :   Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER     :   Sd/-