IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.
Dated this 28th day of July 2016
Complaint No.180/2016
Present: 1) Shri. B.V.Gudli, President.
2) Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi Member
3) Smt. Sunita Member
-***-
Complainant: Mohammad Ismail S/o. Sayed Hussain Mulla,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Shahu Nagar, Belgaum,
Tal. and Dist. Belgaum.
(By Shri. S. S. Genannavar, Advocate).
V/s.
Opponents:1) METRO SHOES LTD;
CTS No. 1677, Kirloskar Road,
Belagavi.
(O.Ps. are placed ex-parte.)
(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, Member)
:: ORDER ::
1) U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainant has filed the complaint against the opponent alleging deficiency for non provide of proper service.
2) In-spite of service of notice opponent remained absent. Hence placed ex-parte.
3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and other original documents produced by the complainant.
4) We have heard the argument of the complainant counsel and perused the records.
5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and entitled to the reliefs sought?
6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.
:: R E A S O N S ::
7) On perusal contents of the complainant and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant has purchased a shoe from opponent shop on 26/12/2015 for Rs.5,990/- vide Invoice No.25946. The complainant further submits that, before purchasing the shoe from opponent shop, the complainant has enquired about the quality and durability of the purchasing shoe and the opponent has assured full guarantee about the quality and durability at the time of purchasing to the complainant and assured if anything happens contrary to assured guarantee, opponent will make necessary repair and if repair is also not done proper the same will be compensated by the opponent by paying the amount of shoe.
8) The complainant further stated that, after worn of the shoe he got shoe bite problem hence on the next day he approached opponent with paid up Tax Invoice and complained about the shoe bite problem. The complainant further submits that one of the employee in opponents shop assured him that they will repair the shoe and make the said problems right. Then the complainant handed over the shoe to opponent and in receipt of the same undertook to solve the said problems soon. The complainant further submits that, after taking the delivery, the complainant found the said problems are still existing in his shoe and the complainant again approached opponent for second time and handed over shoe to opponent once again for repair and the opponent issued a repair memo sheet dated. 17/2/2016.
9) The complainant further submits that, the opponent delivered back the said shoe on 9/3/2016 after 21 days, but again complainant found same problems even after the repair has been done of the shoe by the opponent four to five times and now the said shoe is still with opponent only. The complainant further submits that, he had issued legal notice dated 31/3/2016 to the opponent to call upon them to provide service, exchange said shoe and the said notice are duly served to opponent and the opponent did not comply with the said legal notice. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.
10) In support of the claim, the complainant produced the original documents which are exibited as Ex. No. 1 to 5 and on perusal of the documents the complainant has purchased a shoe from opponent shop on 26/12/2015 for Rs.5990/- vide Invoice No.25946 and after approaching several times the opponent has been not repaired the shoe properly or exchange it. After service of notice, the opponent has failed to appear before the forum hence placed ex-parte. Hence, the claim of the complainant has to be believed and accepted. The prayer made by complainant in the complaint is that the OP may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,990/- cost of the handset and damages for mental agony and physical harassment of Rs.10000/- with interest @18% from the date of purchase of machine. The facts mentioned in the complaint are with regard to purchase of shoes from OP, but the prayer made is for handset and the compensation claimed is for purchase of machine. Here the facts alleged are different from the prayer made. But we have perused the affidavit in the form of evidence, wherein the complainant has rightly prayed for the facts alleged in complaint. Hence by considering the evidence and moreover being OPs are placed exparte and there is no defence put forth by OP for the allegations of complainant. We have granted the relief looking into the facts in the complaint and moreover the affidavit filed by complainant in the form of evidence.
11) We have noticed that the case is drafted by counsel appearing for complainant. Hence according to our Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in on of the decision reported, held that the parties should not suffer loss on account of the advocates fault. We have not exactly quoted the sentence from the decision of Hon’ble High Court. But on account of fault on the part of counsel or advocate in framing facts should not harm the parties. Hence we have granted the relief even after the prayer made is different from the allegations made in the complaint.
12) On perusal contents of the affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant, complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opponent.
13) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the opponent has been proved.
14) Accordingly, following order.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The opponent is hereby directed and liable to pay Rs. 5,990/- toward the cost of the shoe to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% p.a from the date of filing i.e.22/4/2016 till realization of the entire amount.
Further, the opponent is hereby directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- toward the compensation for mental and physical harassment etc.,
Further, the opponent is hereby directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.
(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 28th day of July 2016)
Member Member President
gm*
