Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that on 25.11.2023, the complainant purchased the shoe i.e. FWR Men Shoe GF 4556022 Black 41 for an amount of Rs.5995/-. Alleged that the said shoe purchased by the complainant was uncomfortable as the same was giving swelling to the feet of the complainant due to which complainant feel a huge pain in the joints of his feet within an hour only after wearing the said shoes and due to hardness of the shoe the complainant feel woody feeling when walking and in this regard the complainant sent a complaint of the shoe via email at care@woodlandworldwide.com and thereafter the complainant received an email with a direction to deposit the shoe at local woodland store on which the complainant has deposited his above said shoe with Opposite Party No.2 on 07.11.2023 vide slip no.45. The Opposite Party No.2 at the time of depositing the shoes of the complainant assured that the shoe will sent to him as earlier as possible and thereafter inspite of various requests by the complainant Opposite Party No.2 failed to give new shoes to him, so the complainant had purchased new shoes and now the said shoes are not required for the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant received a telephonically call of Opposite Party No.2 on this mobile, vide which the complainant was asked to come and bring his shoes and when the complainant approached to Opposite Party No.1 and when he worn the said shoes then he felt same problem in the shoes. When the complainant requested Opposite Party No.2 to exchange the shoes or to return his money, he flatly refused to admit the request of the complainant. Due to such act of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and agony. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 04.01.2024 to the Opposite Parties, but all in vain. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,995/- i.e. Rs.5995/- the price of above said shoes and Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

c)       And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant does not come to the Commission with clean hands and he has concealed the material facts from this Commission. Averred that the complainant has purchased the shoe having article no.GF4556022 Black41 from Opposite Party No.2 vide retail invoice no.202303N034C01750 dated 25.11.2023 for a sum of Rs.5997/- including all taxes after fully satisfaction of comfort, fitting and wearing etc. It was the clear term and condition of the company that ‘No warranty against wear and tear, size misfit or discomfort problem, once the Product is worn”. The terms and conditions for selling products of the company are clearly mentioned in the invoice. The complainant wears and enjoys the aforesaid shoe for a considerable time period and on dated 07.12.2023, the complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 and requested to get hammering back counter side of the shoes of the complainant from the company. The condition of the shoes of the complainant was poor at that time. The Opposite Party No.2 accepted the request and receives the shoes of the complainant for sending it to the company for hammering back counter side; vide slip no. 45 dated 07.12.2023.  Averred that the date of slip was wrongly mentioned as 07.11.2023 instead of 07.12.2023. The Opposite Party No.2 also assured that it took about 30 days to hammer the shoes and the complainant will be informed as and when they received the shoe after getting it hammered. Thereafter Opposite Party No.2 received the shoes on dated 05.01.2024 from the company and the Opposite Party No.2 immediately informed  the complainant on his mobile no. 904130016 from telephone number 01636- 513007 of Opposite Party No.2 and requested him to receive the shoes of the complainant, but they refused to visit the Opposite Party No.2 to receive shoes and now the complainant has filed the present false complaint against the respondents, by leveling false and baseless allegation by narrating a concocted story, only with the malafide motive to harass the respondents. The shoe of the complainant is still lying with the Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant may receive the same at any time. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5.

4.       On the other hand, Opposite Parties have placed on record affidavit of Sh.Honey Sood, Area Sales Manager of M/s Aero Club (Woodland) as Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5.

5.         We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties and also gone through the record.

6.       It is proved on record that the complainant purchased shoe of Woodland Company from Opposite Party No.1 model no.FWR Men Shoe GF 3044118 Black vide invoice Ex.C2. It is the allegation of the complainant, the said shoe was uncomfortable as the same was giving swelling to the feet of the complainant due to which complainant felt pain in the joint of his feet within an hour only after wearing the said shoes.Submitted further that he deposited his above said shoe with Opposite Party No.1 on 07.12.2023 vide slip no.44. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that Opposite Party No.1 at the time of depositing the shoes of the complainant assured that the shoe will sent to him as earlier as possible, but inspite of various requests by the complainant Opposite Party No.1 failed to give him the shoe, so in the compelling circumstances the complainant has to purchase new shoe and prayed that shoe of the complainant may kindly be replaced or amount of the shoe be refunded.

7.       On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that as per the policy terms and conditions printed on the backside of the invoice, ‘No warranty against wear and tear, size misfit or discomfort problem, once the Product is worn”. So, the complainant is not entitled for the replacement or refund the shoe in question. Contended further that on dated 07.12.2023, the complainant visited the respondent no. 2 and requested to get hammer his shoes from the company. The condition of the shoes of the complainant was poor at that time. The respondent No.2 accepted the request of the complainant and receives the shoes of the complainant for sending it to the company for hammering; vide slip no. 45, dated 07.12.2023 and the respondent No. 2 also assured the complainant  that it took about 30 days to hammer the shoes and the complainant will be informed. Thereafter Opposite Party No.1 received the shoes on dated 05.01.2024 from the company and the Opposite Party No.1 immediately informed to the  complainant, but he refused to visit the Opposite Party No.1 to receive the shoe.

8.       We have given the due consideration to the admitted and proved facts on record and also considered the rival contentions of the ld. Counsels for both the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. The perusal of the terms and conditions printed on the back side of the invoice duly placed on record by the Opposite Parties vide Ex.OP1 clearly shows that “No warranty against wear and tear, size misfit or discomfort problem, once the product is worn”. So it is evident that as per terms and conditions of the company, there is no warranty of the product, once the same is worn. It is also proved on record that the complainant has purchased the shoe in question on 04.11.2023, however, he made the complaint with regard to the said shoe only on 07.12.2023 i.e. after one month from the date of its purchase. It has been observed that as per Ex.OP1, the OPs are under obligation/committed   to get the shoe repaired when deposited within warranty period of 90 days. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that the shoe of the complainant is still lying with the Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant may receive the same at any time.

9.       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint stands disposed of. However, complainant is at liberty to approach the Opposite Parties for getting his repaired shoe back and the Opposite Parties are directed to handover the shoe in question to complainant without charging any repair charges. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission