DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Thursday the 04th day of April 2024
CC.586/2023
Complainant
Bijo George,
S/o. Varkki,
Vadakke Vellur, Ragasudha (HO),
Civil Station, Kozhikode - 673020
Opposite Parties
- Metro Branch Ltd,
Shop No. 1107 B,
1st Floor, Hilite Mall,
City NH – 17 Bypass,
Calicut – 673014
( By Adv. Sri. C. Lalkishore)
- Bijith Kumar. T.V,
Metro Brands Ltd,
Shop No. 1107 B,
1st Floor, Hilite Mall,
City NH – 17 Bypass,
Kozhikode – 673014
ORDER
By Sri. V. BALAKSRISHNAN – MEMBER
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant purchased a pair of shoes with the brand name of E-GOSS gold from the first opposite party paying an amount of Rs. 5,499/-. After 2 days of usage some white marks appeared on top of the shoes. The white marks did not disappear on polishing. The white colour is visible in the dark coloured shoes. On 25/11/2023 he approached the first opposite party and convinced them about the complaint. They promised to rectify the defects and the shoes were handed over to them. On 29/11/2023 when the first opposite party was contacted they were not ready either to repair or replace it with a new one. The product was returned without attending the grievance of the complainant.
- So the complainant has approached this Commission to issue a direction to the opposite parties to pay back the price of the shoe amounting to Rs. 5,499/- with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the hardship suffered.
- The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
2) Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence consists of the oral evidence of the PW1 and Exts A1 to A4.
- Heard the complainant.
- Point No 1 : In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. Ext A1 is the copy of the duplicate tax invoice given by the first opposite party while purchasing the product, Ext A2 is the upgraded receipt, Ext A3 is the photo of defective shoe and Ext A4 is the cover photo specifying the brand name.
- It is averred in the affidavit that Rs. 5,499/- was paid to the first opposite party while purchasing the shoes. It is further averred that the product became defective within 2 days and there was no favourable attitude from the opposite parties to rectify the defect or to replace the defective product.
- The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to state their version and they chose to remain ex-parte. No contra evidence is there. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4. The act of the opposite parties in selling a defective product and their further neglect to address the concerns of the complainant over the product amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence the complainant is entitled to get replacement of defective pair of shoes with a new one or in the alternative, refund of the purchase price of Rs. 5,499/-. He is also eligible for the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the hardship and mental agony suffered. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
- Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows; a) CC.586/2023 is allowed in part. b) The opposite parties are directed to replace the defective pair of shoes with a new one of same description which shall be free from any defect or in the alternative repay the purchase price of Rs. 5,499/- (Rupees five thousand four hundred and ninety nine only) to the complainant with interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment, after taking back the defective pair of shoes.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the hardship and mental agony suffered.
d) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
e) No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 4th day of April, 2024.
Date of Filing: 29/11/2023
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of the duplicate tax invoice given by the first opposite party while purchasing the product.
Ext.A2 – Upgraded receipt.
Ext.A3 – Photo of defective shoe.
Ext.A4 – Cover photo specifying the brand name.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Bijo George, (Complainant)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
