BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.150 of 2015

Date of Instt. 10.04.2015

Date of Decision :10.09.2015

Lt.Col.Aashish Verma, Officer-in-charge, Military Farm, Jalandhar Cantt.

..........Complainant Versus

M/s Achievers, Black Berrys, Retail Brand Store, Shop No.579, Model Town, Jalandhar-144001.

.........Opposite party.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Hukam Chand Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Nitin Gupta Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant is posted as Officer-in-charge Military Farm, Jalandhar Cantt and is holding the rank of Lt.Col. The complainant purchased three items from the opposite party on discount in the month of January 2015. The complainant purchased three items i.e one Jacket and two pullovers, on the assurance of the opposite party that the items likely to be purchased by the complainant are of good quality. On the assurance of the opposite party the complainant purchased the above said three items. On reaching at home when the complainant tried the items he was astonished to know that out of three pieces which were purchased against bill No.2350, two were found defective. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party with the defective items and the opposite party entertained the request of the complainant and agreed to change both the pieces. On receiving approval opposite party changed one jacket with other item on discounted cost. On receiving approval to change the defective pullover as mentioned in bill No.2243, opposite party did not agree to change the pullover which were running on discount but only asked to pay the full cost of the pullover but the opposite party did not agree to change one with the pullover bought on discount with the pullover being sold on discount of the same cost. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to change the defective item or to refund its price alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the true and correct facts of the present case are that on 3.1.2015, the complainant had visited the store of the opposite party situated at 579, Model Town, Jalandhar for buying the products of the opposite party. The sales representative of the opposite party attended the complainant and gave him appropriate services whereupon the complainant vide invoice No.2350 of the opposite party purchased three articles i.e, one jacket and two sweaters, on discounted price as the opposite party were running a sale period during the said time. On 4.1.2015, the complainant again visited the store of the opposite party and asked the concerned person to replace the jacket which was alleged to be defective, whereupon the staff of the opposite party, as per their company policy, issued him a service slip and requested him to await the approval from the quality control department of the opposite party. Accordingly, a complaint was duly lodged by the staff of the opposite party with their quality control department and immediately upon approval vide their portal ID No.2002906, the staff of the opposite party called the complainant, who again visited the store of the opposite party on 18.1.2015 and purchased two articles against invoice No.2669 in lieu of the defective good replaced. It is submitted that as per the policy of the opposite party, goods once sold during the sale period, can not be replaced/exchanged. But, since the jacket sold to the complainant was alleged to be defective and keeping in mind the reputation of the company, the opposite party duly exchanged the same with their other products, which were not discounted and were fresh however, the staff of the opposite party, inadvertently and by bonafide mistake, discounted the said replaced goods, against the policy. It is further submitted that on 5.1.2015, the complainant had again visited the store of the opposite party with the complaint that another sweater that he had purchased vide invoice No.2350 was also alleged to be defective, whereupon the opposite party again entertained the complaint of the complainant and again issued him a service slip bearing No.2243. The staff of the opposite party again lodged the complaint with the quality control department and upon confirmation from them again called the complainant to exchange the defective product. It is further submitted that the defective pullover inadvertently sold to the complainant was for Rs.1995/- however, the discounted price thereof was Rs.1269/- and since by that time the discounted sale period was over, the staff of the opposite party requested the complainant to exchange the alleged defective goods for any product and after adjusting the amount of Rs.1269/- to pay the difference between amount of the fresh product and the discounted amount paid by him i.e Rs.1269/-. The complainant did not agree to the same and wanted to exchange the goods from discounted goods only, but since the sale period had already been over. there were no discounted products with the opposite party. The retail executive of the opposite party who was also present at the store at that time also tried to reason out with the complainant, but the complainant was not ready to understand and walked out of the store of the opposite party, threatening the staff that he shall file case against them in the court of law. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, authorized representative of opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. The complainant purchased three items from the opposite party on discount during sale period but out of the said three items, two were found to be defective and as such, the complainant approached the opposite party and opposite party exchanged the one item but refused to exchange the second item which was purchased by the complainant for Rs.1269/- as by that time sale was over, however, the opposite party asked the complainant to purchase any product and the amount of Rs.1269/- shall be adjusted in the same and he will have to pay the balance amount but according to opposite party, the complainant insisted for exchange of the discounted item worth Rs.1269/- with discounted item. However, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party made a statement which has been recorded separately that opposite party is ready to refund Rs.1269/- to the complainant. The complainant has also asked for exchange of the defective item or for refund of its price. The opposite party became ready to refund the price of the defective item only after the complainant has filed the present complaint. Sale of defective item even on discount during sale constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party is directed to refund of Rs.1269/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.1000/- in lump sum as compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

10.09.2015 Member Member President