BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.595 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 18.12.2019

      Date of Decision: 26.04.2023

Shikha Gupta D/o Sh. Ashok Gupta R/o Flat No.1004, ECO Towers, Shivalik Enclave, Sector-125, Kharar, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

Metro Brands Ltd. (JLQ-Jalandhar), Shop No.496-L, Model Town, Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. A. K. Gupta, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Parshotam Kapoor, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP is opened/running a showroom under the brand name of 'CROCS' situated in Model Town Jalandhar i.e. one of the topmost posh area of Jalandhar, regarding which the OP advertize through various modes. Being influenced from the advertisements, complainant visited the showroom of OP and the OP represented her that they sold only best quality of shoes. Under the influence of their representations regarding their products, complainant purchased two pairs of shoes from them vide Bill No.7078 dated: 25.07.2019 by paying a sum of Rs.6,242/- i.e. Rs.3,495/- for one pair and Rs.2,747/- for another pair of shoes. Within a week of the purchase, defects appeared in both pairs of shoes which includes cracks on the soul and the upper part of shoes was torn out. So, the complainant visited the showroom of OP and they assured to get the shoes repaired. Though the OP repaired both pairs of shoes by keeping those with them for a period of 21 days but soon thereafter, various new defects including the previous ones started appearing in the shoes. But not only this, the color of the shoes also got fade. Being aggrieved from, the complainant again had to visit the showroom of OP with the request to change the shoes, but instead, the OP agreed to get the shoes repaired vide repair card No.60289 dated:14-08-2019 and repair card No.60310 dated:11-09-2019 respectively for each pair of shoes and directed the complainant to collect the shoes after a period of 21 days from the date of repair card. After the due date, the complainant visited the showroom of OP a number of times, but the defects were not removed satisfactorily, at that time staff at the showroom of opposite party unofficially informed that since both pairs of shoes in question belong to second category product (i.e. a product having some invisible manufacturing defects or of inferior quality), as such, those cannot be properly repaired and the complainant have to accept the shoes with these defects. So, the complainant requested to refund the bill amount on the ground of cheating, to which the OP flatly refused. The OP also refused to repair the shoes as per satisfaction of the complainant. The OP with mala fide intention sold inferior quality and defective products to the complainant by misrepresenting her that the shoes are of superior quality for which the OP charge such a huge amount of Rs.6,242/-. In this way the OP cheated the complainant and it also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party for which they are liable. On refusal of the OPs to repair/replace/return the two pairs of shoes the complainant was constrain to issue a legal notice upon the OP through her counsel on 02-12-2019, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund of the entire amount of the shoes i.e. Rs.6242/- alongwith interest @ 2% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form, as the same is based upon wrong, false and frivolous facts, as the complainant is guilty of concealing and suppressing material facts and has approached this Forum with unclean hands with the sole intention of deceiving this Forum. It is specifically submitted that complainant's suppression and concealment of material facts is evident from the fact that there is no manufacturing defect or inherent defect. Moreover, the complainant had purchased two footwear worth Rs.3495/- and Rs.2747/- totally aggregating to a total of Rs.6242/- from the OP and the complainant had used said footwear and after using said footwears the complainant sought replacement of the same, which sought is not maintainable as per law. However, until and unless there exists a manufacturing defect, the customer/complainant has to adhere to the terms as mentioned overleaf of the invoice. The OP is not obliged to replace the shoes or provide refund if there is no adherence by the complainant to the terms as mentioned overleaf the purchase invoice and if there was/is any manufacturing defect in the shoes the complainant should not use the shoes and return it unused with proper tags if the complainant wants to replace or wants refund of the same, however as per the policy of the company, the company can only provides replacement/refund (company's discretion only) only if the product is returned unused and along with original purchase invoice within 45 days of its purchase by the complainant. Furthermore, the OP as per company norms also provided 90 days stitching and pasting warranty only if the issue is related to the stitching and pasting of the products/shoes. All these terms and conditions are printed on the overleaf of the purchase invoice which the complainant is in possession of and this only proves that even though the complainant had the knowledge of the terms and conditions he intentionally concealed a false story and filed the present false complaint against the OP. All the Crocs products are governed by the ‘Repairs and Services Guarantee Policy’, which is printed on overleaf of every purchase invoice. It is further averred that the complainant has used the footwear and this act of the complainant clearly shows that the footwear had no manufacturing or inherent defect, but it was the complainant who caused an illegal loss to the OP and this fact can be ascertained from the photographs of the footwear which makes it clear that footwear has no defect. It is further averred that on the request of the complainant, the manager of OP deposited footwear and generated a repair memo dated 14.08.2019, however the manager of OP clearly apprised the complainant that there is no defect in the footwear and the footwear did not shed colour but due to persistent requests made by the complainant the manager of OP was forced to deposit the footwear and for generating a repair memo dated 14.08.2019. It is further averred that the complaint is exfacie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit and the complainant has made this complaint in order to raise a premeditated, false and frivolous prosecution. It is further averred that the complainant has no true grievance or valid cause of action  qua the answering OP. The complaint of the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has not impleaded the crocs company as a part in the present complaint, hence the complaint is required to be dismissed on this score only. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of footwears from the OP is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties very minutely.

6.                The complainant has proved on record that he purchased two pairs of shoes from OP vide bill Ex.C-1 for Rs.6242/- on 25.07.2019. The complainant has alleged that within a week of the purchase, the defects appeared in both the pairs of shoes, which includes cracks on the soul and the upper part of the shoes was torn out. When he visited the showroom of the OP, the same was repaired after keeping the shoes with them for 21 days. He has alleged that soon thereafter various new defects including the previous ones started appearing in the shoes and the colour of the shoes also got fade. He has again visited the showroom and the OPs agreed to repair the shoes. He has proved on record the repair cards Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. These invoices are dated 14.06.2019 and 12.10.2019. The complainant has alleged that there is a deficiency in service as the pair of shoes was of second category product i.e. a product having some invisible manufacturing defect or of inferior quality, therefore it cannot be repaired. The complainant has proved on record the legal notice and delivery status report from Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6.

7.                The OP has alleged that there was no manufacturing defect in the shoes purchased by the complainant. The complainant had used the footwear and after the use of the footwear, the same can be repaired, if the same is within 90 days of the purchase as per the company norms. The warranty is only regarding stitching and pasting of the product/shoes. The OP has alleged that all these conditions have been printed on the overleaf of the purchase invoice. The OP has proved on record the photographs of the footwear Ex.O-3 and Ex.O-4 and alleged that there is no defect in the footwears. The complainant was apprised of the fact that there is no defect in the footwear nor there was any shading of the colour nor there was any manufacturing defect in the footwear. It has been alleged that despite all these facts, the OP was ready to replace the footwear, but the complainant has refused to accept the replacement and started demanding cash refund, which cannot be given to the complainant as the complaint is not maintainable and there is no manufacturing defect.

8.                Ex.C-1 proves the fact that the complainant purchased two footwears from the OP for Rs.6242/- on 25.07.2019. On 14.08.2019, he gave the footwear for repair and the job type was insole/bunwar change (Patava). Again vide Ex.C-3, there was a problem of pasting and sole pasting was the job and it was given on 11.09.2019. The OP has produced on record the invoice, on the overleaf the conditions have been mentioned and there is a mention of the fact of repair and service guarantee policy. The complainant has not proved on record the photographs of the footwear to show about the defects occurred in the footwears. The complainant has alleged the defects of cracks on the sole and the upper part of the shoes was torn out, which was existing earlier and was repaired. Apart from this, he alleged the shading of the colour later on, but he has not produced on record any photographs to show the previous colour and condition of the footwear and the change and defect occurred after the use of the footwears. Ex.O-3 and Ex.O-4 are the photographs which apparently nowhere show any defect. It is settled law that the complainant is to prove his own case. The complainant himself has admitted that earlier the shoes were repaired which were regarding the Patava, cracks on the sole and the sole was changed. The complainant has not proved on record the photographs to show that the upper part of the shoe was torn out and the same was repaired as per his own admission. Ex.O-2 and Ex.O-3 nowhere shows that the shoe has been torn out or the same was repaired. The OP has admitted to replace the footwear despite the fact that as per policy and the rules, they are not liable to replace the same. So, there is no deficiency in service proved by the complainant nor there is any unfair trade practice proved by the complainant. However, as the OPs have agreed to replace, the complainant can visit the OP and get the footwear’s replaced for the same price, if he wishes so, and if he chooses another pair of superior quality, he will pay the balance amount. So, accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of without any compensation and litigation expenses. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

26.04.2023           Member                        Member              President