Punjab

Sangrur

CC/502/2016

Harjinder Singh(Harry) - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aero Club Woodland Store - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 502                                                                                         

                                                                   Instituted on:   19.08.2016                                                                                   

                                                                   Decided on:    04.11.2016

 

Harjinder Singh alias Harry son of Shri Prem Singh resident of Thagga Pati Badrukhan Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1. M/s Aero Club Woodland Store Ground  Floor Satyar Prem Tower, Opposite Kaula Park outside Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Manager.
2. Marketed by Aero Club 2168 Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005 through its Manager.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT   :             In person.                      

 

FOR T TOPP THE  OPP. PARTIES    :            Shri Ramandeep Singh, A/A                        

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

     

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Harjinder Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 25.12.2014 he purchased a pair of shoe from the OP No.1. Suddenly the problem in the stitches of the shoes occurred and the complainant approached OP No.1 who further sent the shoes to Delhi branch. But after repair when the complainant collected of the same from OP No.1 he found that there was cut in the leather. So, the complainant requested the OP no.1 either to replace the pair of shoes in question or to refund the price amount and OP No.1 kept the said shoes and sent the same to Delhi but till today neither the OP no.1 replaced the shoe nor refund the price amount.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

 

i)      OPs be directed to either replace the shoes or to refund its price amount.

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, the purchase of the shoes by the complainant on 25.02.2014 is admitted. It is stated that the complainant approached the OPs that stitches of the shoes are causing problems.  The OP no.1 sent the said shoes to the headquarter for repairing and sent back to the complainant.  After receiving the shoes the complainant          alleged that there was leather cut on the shoes then the OP offered him for replacement of shoes  but the complainant filed the present complaint.  It is further submitted that the OP still as a goodwill gesture and to avoid any unwarranted litigation, on the last date of hearing had offered a new pair of shoes but the complainant outrightly refused to accept the same. The said offer is still open from the OP.   

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand , the OPs have tendered only an affidavit  Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.   

4.             After perusal of the documents placed on record and heard the arguments of the parties, we find that the purchase of the shoes in dispute and defect regarding leather cut is admitted by the OPs.  Moreover the OPs have stated that they offered to replace the shoes in dispute with new one and now they are also ready to replace the same with new one. We feel that since the Ops are ready to replace the shoes in dispute with new one , so only point of controversy remained in this case is whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation or not ?

5.             It is admitted by the OPs that the complainant has approached them to repair the shoes in question and  they sent the same to the Delhi headquarter  but after receiving back the same  there was a  leather cut in the shoes.  The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that  he requested the OPs to either replace  the shoes in question or to refund its price amount but they did not pay any heed to his request. From the perusal of the facts stated above, we feel that the complainant was to compelled to file the present complaint as his grievance  had not been redressed by the OPs. Moreover, the OPs themselves  offered to replace the shoes in question during the pendency of the present complaint which clearly shows  clearcut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

 

6.             In light of the facts stated above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to replace the shoes in question of the complainant with new one of same model and quality. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- being compensation on account of mental pain agony, harassment and  litigation expenses.        

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from  the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                November 04, 2016

 

 

 

      ( Sarita Garg)                                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                                                  Member                                            President

 

 

 

BBS/-