DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 178 dated 14.03.2018.
Date of decision: 05.11.2020.
Munish Gupta S/o. Sh. Balwinder Kumar, R/o. H. No.404-F, Golf Link Apartments, Hambran Road, Ludhiana. ..…Complainant
Versus
- Mochi Shoes, Plot No.431-L, 1st Floor, Corporation no.2/13/423/B, Model Town, Ludhiana. Ph. 0161-5065247 through its Proprietor/partner/authorized person.
- Mochi Shoes Company, Shop No.1-2, Kerawala Mansion, L.T. Road, Crawford Market, Mumbai-400002. Mob.75061-27177
- M/s. Ritebrand Retail Pvt. Ltd., No.17, Rutland Gate, 4th Street, Nungambakkam, Channai-600034 Ph. 044-32210400.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT
MS. JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Maninder Khara, Advocate.
For OPs : Sh. Harpreet Singh, Advocate.
ORDER
PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT
1. This complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by the above named complainant on the allegations that he purchased a pair of shoes from OP1 on 07.01.2018 vide invoice No.58483 for Rs.4990/-. However, after few days, shoes went out of shape and started cracking. The colour of the shoes also faded and there appeared patches on the upper side of the shoes. It appears that there was some manufacturing defect in the shoes sold by OP1 to the complainant. When the complainant contacted OP1 with a request to replace the shoes, the shoes were retained by OP1 and the complainant was told that the same would be got replaced from OP3, the manufacturer of the shoes or the price of the shoes would be refunded. Later on, OP1 neither replaced the shoes nor returned the amount. The complainant sent emails to OP3 dated 09.02.2018 and 14.02.2018 and in response, OP3 assured the complainant that his grievance would be sorted out within a week, but to no avail. In this manner, OPs not only caused financial loss to the tune of Rs.4990/-, but also caused mental harassment and agony on account of deficiency in service. In the end, it is requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.4990/- charged on the price of shoes along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for having indulged in unfair trade practice.
2. The complaint has been resisted by OP1 to OP3. In joint written statement filed by OPs, it has been pleaded that it was clearly mentioned on the repair and service guarantee policy printed on the back of the invoice that the product would not be exchanged nor buyer could claim refund of money for a used product. It has further been denied if the shoes in question went out of shape or started cracking or the colour of the shoes faded or any patches appeared on the upper portion of the shoes. It has also been denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the pair of shoes sold to the complainant, who wore the shoes for more than one month and thereafter, sought replacement without any rhyme or reason. In fact, the pair of shoes does not suffer from any defect. Therefore, question of replacing the same or refunding the price of shoes does not arise. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of complaint has also been made.
3. To prove his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and thereafter, closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Ganesh Gupta, Manager of OPs as Ex. RA along with document Ex. R1 to Ex. R3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the counsel for parties and have also gone through the record.
6. By way of this complaint, the complainant has claimed that the pair of shoes purchased by him on 07.01.2018 from OP1 went out of shape and started cracking and the colour of the shoes also faded after some time and some patches appeared on the upper part of the shoes, which indicated that there was some manufacturing defect in the shoes. At the time of arguments, pair of shoe were produced in the court by the counsel for OPs. On a careful and minute look on the pair of shoes produced in the court by counsel for OPs, no such defect could be noticed in the shoes. No cracks were found in the shoes nor the colour of the shoes appeared to have faded nor any patches were found on the shoes. It could also not been observed that the shoes have gone out of shape. Shoes were purchased by the complainant on 07.01.2018 and the same were returned to OP1 for replacement in the month of February 2018 i.e. after a period of one month. A fair look at the shoes reveals that the shoes were used/worn for one month. Apart from that, no such defect, as pointed out in para no.3 of the complaint, could be noticed in the shoes. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Commission, no case is made out for replacement of the shoes or refund of the price of the shoes to the complainant.
7. During the course of arguments, the counsel for complainant has referred to Ex. C4, which is reply sent by OP3 in response to the complaint lodged by the complainant regarding the shoes. In the reply Ex. C4, it has been mentioned that OP3 was sorry to hear that complainant had a bad experience for the shoes bought by him. According to the counsel for the complainant, in reply Ex. C4, it has been admitted by OP3 that the shoes were defective and colour has faded. However, this contention on the part of the counsel for the complainant does not appear to be tenable. In reply Ex. C4, it is also mentioned that OP3 would be in touch with the showroom from where shoes have been purchased and OP3 would get back to the complainant in 5-7 working days after a quality control check. It is thus evident from Ex. C4 that when this reply was sent to the complainant, the company was yet to get the shoes examined from its quality control department. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an admission on the part of OP3 that the shoes were defective and the colour of the shoes had faded. Moreover, it has been pointed in foregoing para of the judgment that the shoes have been produced in the court and no defect such as fading of colour, disfiguration, appearance of any patches were found on the shoes.
8. As a result of above discussion, the complaint dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Jyotsna Thatai) (K.K. Kareer)
Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated.05.11.2020.
Gobind Ram.
