Punjab

Sangrur

CC/460/2018

Jai Teg Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Mukesh Kumar Garg

20 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                             

                                               

                                                                                                         Complaint No. 460  

                                                                                                         Instituted on:  12.11.2018

                                                                                                         Decided on:    20.02.2020

 

Jai Teg Singh son of Daljeet Singh Dandass, resident of Mandi Gali, Sangrur.

           

                                                …. Complainant  

                                Versus

M/s. Aero Club (WOODLAND), Shop at Opposite Kaula Park, Outside Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Store Manager.

                                                  ..Opposite party

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            : Shri  Mukesh Garg, Advocate            

FOR THE OPP. PARTY                           : None.                         

 

Quorum:    Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

      

1.             Shri Jai Teg Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that  the complainant visited the outlet of the OP and purchased one pair of shoes article number GC1925115 size 43 colour camel vide invoice dated 3.9.2018 for Rs.2337/- which was having a warranty of 90 days.  The case of the complainant is that on 3.10.2018 the complainant went on a tour with his friends to New Delhi and when the complainant reached Delhi, the stitching of shoes was torn and same were badly damaged and due to this the complainant felt very much humiliation and insult before his friends and suffered a great hardship on his tour due to damaged shoes.  As such, after returning from the tour, the complainant approached OP on 8.10.2018 and requested for replacement of the shoes, however, instead of replacing the shoes, the OP kept the shoes for repairing vide repair slip number 63 dated 8.10.2018 and the date of delivery of the shoes was 22.10.2018 but thereafter the shoes were not returned to the complainant despite his best efforts.  Thus, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2337/- being the price of shoes along with interest and further to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.             In reply filed by OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is stated further that as the defect was easily repairable, the complainant also agreed to the said repairs and on 8.10.2018 left the shoes for repairs, but thereafter the complainant refused to take back the shoes on 22.10.2018.  On merits, the sale and purchase of the shoes is admitted.  It is stated that the complainant had approached the OP for some pasting problem in the sole on 8.10.2018. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and has also perused the case file.  

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant visited the outlet of the OP and purchased one pair of shoes article number GC1925115 size 43 colour camel vide invoice dated 3.9.2018 for Rs.2337/- which was having a warranty of 90 days vide receipt Ex.C-2.  Further case of the complainant is that on 3.10.2018 the complainant went on a tour with his friends to New Delhi and when the complainant reached Delhi, the stitching of shoes was torn and same were badly damaged and due to this the complainant felt very much humiliation and insult before his friends and suffered a great hardship on his tour due to damaged shoes.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that after returning from the tour, the complainant approached OP on 8.10.2018 and requested for replacement of the shoes, however, instead of replacing the shoes, the OP kept the shoes for repairing vide repair slip number 63 dated 8.10.2018 and the date of delivery of the shoes was 22.10.2018 but thereafter the shoes were not returned to the complainant despite his best efforts.  It is worth mentioning here that it is admitted case of the parties that the defective shoes are lying with the OP. Moreover, the OP in the present case failed to put appearance after filing the reply to the complaint.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP that why they did not refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.2337/- being the cost of shoes. In the circumstances, we hold it to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

6.             In the sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2337/- being the cost of shoes.  We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of 45 days of receipt of copy of this order.    A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

7.             This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because posts of President and Lady Member are lying vacant since 7.8.2018 and 16.09.2018 respectively. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.

                       

                Pronounced.

                February 20, 2020.

 

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                 Member                                 President