Haryana

Ambala

CC/20/2014

PRINCE SACHDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AERO CLUB WOODLAND STORE, - Opp.Party(s)

B.B CHAWLA

23 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 20 of 2014

Date of Institution: 10.01.2014

Date of Decision: 23.06.2017

 

Prince Sachdeva, S/o Shri Sham Sunder Sachdeva, R/o 324/15, Geeta Colony, Shahabad Markanda, Kurukshetra

                                                                                  ...................Complainant

VERSUS

M/s Aero Club Woodland Store, Shop No.4, Old Delhi Road, Prem Nagar, Ambala City (Through its authorized signatory)

                                                                         ...................Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:    SHRI D. N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

        SHRI PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:    Sh. B.B. Chawla, Adv. for Complainant.

                  OP already ex-parte.

ORDER

PER ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

1.               Sh. Prince Sachdeva, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Aero Club Woodland Store/Opposite Party (hereinafter called the “OP”). Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a pair of shoes of Woodland brand from the shop of OP vide bill invoice No.2896 dated 05.10.2012 for a consideration of Rs.3,018/- (rounded off figure) including taxes. The said fact has been accepted by the OP in its reply. The version of the complainant is that at the time of purchasing the said pair of shoes, OP assured him that the shoes are of best Company and further gave oral guarantee of one year on the said shoes with the assurance that if any defect is found within the guarantee period then the OP will replace the same by new one or shall return the amount in cash without any agitation. Further, it is averred by the complainant that the said shoes remained fine hardly for one month and soon thereafter all of a sudden, the sole of shoes left their place and then the complainant immediately rushed to the OP and apprised about the manufacturing defect of separating the sole of shoes at which the OP kept the shoes. The complainant alleges that at the time of keeping the shoes, the OP assured to get them replaced from the Woodland Company. The complainant has, in support of his claim, tendered Repair Slip No.40 dated 15.06.2013 (Annexure C-1). The complainant allegedly approached the OP several times for replacement of shoes but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice dated 05.09.2013 (Annexure C-2 and C-3) to the OP, claiming therein either to replace the shoes with the new-ones or to return the cost of the shoes along with compensation.
2.               OP, through its Store Manager, has filed the reply wherein OP brings to the notice of this Forum that in respect of footwear, the replacement guarantee given the company would stand against manufacturing defect only and the warranty period is 90 days from the date of purchase. Now, since the complainant purchased the footwear on 05.10.2012 and had approached the OP on 15.06.2013 (in view of Annexure C-1), it is prima facie clear that more that 8 months (240 days) have elapsed and as such the goods are out of warranty. The very fact had also been indicated in Repair Slip, tendered as Annexure C-1. The OP asserts that none of its functionary had ever given the assurance that the shoes of the complainant would be replaced. The OP further avers that it is the team of experts which after examining the shoe arrive at a decision, whether the defect is a manufacturing one, and if so then the replacement is done. Despite the goods being out of warranty period, the OP, as a measure of consumer friendly gesture, offered to render all possible help to the complainant and sent the shoe to the company for repairs. The OP states that the condition of the shoe was “Poor” and that the only defect was “very minor gap of pasting in midsole made of phylum” which was duly rectified and that the shoe was ready to be delivered back to the complainant who refused to collect the repaired article and instead insisted for replacement of new shoes.
3.               We have heard ld. Counsel for complainant and have also perused the case file as well as written statement filed by OP.
4.               We are in true consonance with the arguments tendered in reply by the Opposite Party. It is a matter of general prudence that a shoe of any brand would undergo some wear and tear in the span of 8-9 months. It is pertinent to mention here that the company holds no warranty against wear and tear once the shoe is worn (as per terms and conditions enumerated on bill). In the light of the juxtaposition of the facts averred in complaint filed by, and the Annexure C-1 tendered by the complainant, it appears to us that the complainant has tried to mislead this Forum by misrepresenting the material facts just to fit in the terms and conditions enumerated on the back side of the bill which categorically specifies the warranty period of 90 days. To deter filing of such vexatious and malicious complaints, it is imperative to impose costs on the complainant. However, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the monetary value of goods involved in the present case, we are not inclined to impose much cost. Nevertheless, we are constrained, by the mandate of Section 26 of the Act to impose cost of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three hundred only) to be paid by the complainant to the OP; and to issue stern warning to the complainant to be vigilant in future against filing such frivolous complaint.
5.               In view of the above discussion and the fact that the OP has rendered assistance in getting the abovesaid pair of shoes repaired despite they being out of warranty period, we come to the irresistible conclusion that the goods supplied by the OPs to the Complainant suffers from no manufacturing defect (for they being used for much time without complaint), and that OP is not guilty of any deficiency in service.
6.               For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost. However, the complainant is at liberty to collect the repaired shoes from OP.

 

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced on: 23.06.2017

 

PUSHPENDER KUMAR                ANAMIKA GUPTA                          D.N. ARORA

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

ANAMIKA GUPTA

         MEMBER