Haryana

Ambala

CC/367/2016

Madhu Sudan Baweja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mirza International Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Rana

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

           Complaint Case No.    : 367 of 2016

Date of Institution       : 27.09.2016

                                                                Date of Decision         : 17.04.2017

Madhu Sudan Baweja, resident of H. No. 890, Sec. 7, U.E. District Kurukshetra.                                                                                              

……Complainant.

                                                                                               Versus

1.         Mirza International Ltd. NH-1 Factory Store, Kuldeep Nagar GT Road, Ambala Cantt through its M.D./Store Incharge.  

2.         Mirza International Ltd. through its overall Incharge Sahid Ahmad Mirza.

3.         Mirza International Ltd. Registered office 14/6, civil lines, Kanpur-208001 UP through its Director.

                                                                                    ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.                      

Present:          Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        OPs already exparte.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased the brown leather shoes in the month of July 2016 from the respondent No. 1 against the payment of Rs. 2,097/- in cash and the respondent No. 1 assured that the shoes are in best quality and are fresh. It is further submitted that on 31-07-2016 on the day of engagement of his son, the shoes were open from the box and wear the same, on wearing the shoes there was a dot in right toe of the shoe, there was no other shoes and there was no time to purchase the another shoes in Samana, Punjab so the complainant worn the shoes with feeling of the humiliation and some persons/relatives taunted upon the complainant on the day of engagement of his son who is advocate in High Court Chandigarh, is wearing second class shoes, the complainant cannot explain each and everything in the present complaint. The complainant visited the showroom of respondent No. 1 at GT road, Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala but the respondent No. 1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ultimately the complainant visited the shop of respondent No. 1 on 19-09-2016 at about 6:17 PM and purchased the two pair of black and grey colour socks on payment of Rs. 290/- against receipt No. 3733 and on Sunday i.e. 19-09-2016 the complainant also lodged the complaint in the complaint book which was in the hand of other consumer in the shop and complainant requested the respondent No. 1 to change the shoes but in vain. Moreover, the left foot shoe is also leaving leather of brown colour, the shoes are kept without giving any polish with the view to originality to be checked.     The respondent No. 1 refused to accept genuine request of the complainant and to replace the shoes in good and fresh condition.  

Hence, the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP and sought for relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     OPs did not bother to appear despite notice and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03-11-2016.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 &  C-2 and closed his evidence. 

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record very carefully.  Counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased  the shoes from the OP No. 1 but at the time of wearing of shoes, he found that the shoes were defected.

5.                     We have gone through Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced as under:-

                                                (d) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.

                        In view of the above, it is first and foremost conditions to become a consumer that there should have consideration for purchase of goods which paid or promised or partly paid and partly promise or under any system of deferred payment. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he has purchased the shoes from OP No.1 and tendered the bill of Shoes on the file. Therefore, it is a proper case where the complainant can be treated as “Consumer”.  We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record very carefully. As per contention of the counsel for the complainant, the shoes were defected as there was a dot in right toe of the shoe. The contentions putforth by the counsel for the complainant remained unrebutted as the OPs were proceeded against exparte.  In view of pleadings and documents placed on file, we are of the opinion that the shoes supplied by the opposite parties in a defective condition and complainant has also brought the defective shoes in Forum and this Forum has also checked the same and which was found defective as told by the complainant. It is clear that the contentions of the complainant seems to be truth worty and complainant has forced to file the complaint on 27-09-2016 within period of two months from the date of purchase of shoes  and suffered the monitory loss and he has deprived to wear the above said defective shoes. In this way opposite party had supplied the defective shoes. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and opposite parties are directed to comply with the following directions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order:-

(i)      To refund the price to the complainant i.e. Rs.2,097/- within the period of 30 days after receiving of the copy of order, failing which OP will pay the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint.

.

2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.  5,000/- for mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

 

               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.  

 

ANNOUNCED ON :17.04.2017                             Sd/-

                                                                         (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                PRESIDENT 

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                             (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                 MEMBER