BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

      Complaint No.6 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 06.01.2020

      Date of Decision: 04.09.2024

Manjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh resident of Village Gorsian Piran, P. O. Kot Badal Khan, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Aero Club (Woodland), 506-L, Model Town, Jalandhar.

2.       Woodland Corporate Office (Aero Club), 2168, Gurudwara Rd. Block 46, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, Delhi 11005.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. S. S. Turna, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   None for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased a FWR MEN SHOE BM1761, Brown, 44 from the showroom of OP No.1 on 23.07.2019 and OP No.1 assured the complainant that this shoe will have a life of five years and assured the complainant that he will use it regularly more than 5 years and there will be no defect during 5 years. The complainant was surprised to see the change in the color of the shoe as there is a fade in the color after using only one time on 24.07.2019 and the complainant immediately approached the OP No.1 alongwith the defected shoe and OP No.1 assured the complainant that he will utilize the same and also assured the complainant that the pair of shoe is technically defected and same would be changed, as on that date OP have no pair of shoe of the same quality in the store of the showroom to replace the same. Ultimately, the complainant forcible given the shoe to OP’s representative at showroom and a slip of receipt bearing No.99 was issued by the OP No.1 with the assurance that the same will be changed and also assured that within a few days the complainant will be called and will get a new pair of shoe. In the receipt No.99, the representative of the OP No.1 specifically mentioned that shoe is within warranty and condition of the shoe is marked poor. Whereas at the same time, when the shoe was sent to the company i.e. OP No.2, it is marked as very poor and OP No.1 also advised the complainant to call the senior officer of the OP No.2 and the complainant approached the officers of OP No.2 on telephonic call but no proper reply was given to the complainant. When the OP failed to replace the shoe, then the complainant has no option except to serve a legal notice upon the OP through his counsel on 22.10.2019, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the defective pair of shoe along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim against the OP.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.1. It is further averred that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against the answering OP No.1. It is further averred that no manufacturing defect was found after checking by special department of OP No.2 and because of wearing and tearing of the shoe, the colour of the shoes became fade, hence the complaint of the complainant is false, wrong and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the Shoe by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant only as none has appeared on behalf of the OPs and have also gone through the case file as well as written argument submitted by the OPs very minutely.

6.                It is admitted that the complainant purchased a FWR MEN SHOE BM1761, Brown, 44 from the showroom of OP No.1. It is also proved that after sometime, there was a change in the color of the shoe as there is a fade in the colour. It is also admitted that the complainant approached the OP for the replacement of the shoe, since the shoe was not available, therefore, the slip was issued. The complainant has proved the receipt Annexure-A showing that the complainant purchased the pair of shoe for Rs.7196/- on 23.07.2019. Annexure-B shows that on 08.09.2019, the complainant gave the shoe to the OP for replacement. The receipt shows that the complaint mentioned in the receipt was regarding color fade and it also shows that the same was within warranty. Annexure-B further shows that the condition of the shoe was mentioned as poor. The legal notice to the OP was also given, but no reply was ever given by the OP. The claim form has also been proved as Annexure-C. The legal notice has been proved as Annexure D.

7.                The only contention of the OP in the written argument is that no surety was given to replace the shoe and there was no manufacturing defect in the shoe, therefore, the same cannot be replaced. The fading of the color was due to wearing and tearing of the shoe, but this contention of the OP is not tenable as the shoe was purchased on 23.07.2019 and within one month only, the colour faded. Even if a person uses regularly a shoe purchased for Rs.7195/-, even then the color does not fade away in such a short span. The OP has not produced on record any document or evidence to show that this was because of wearing and tearing. They themselves have given the receipt that the condition of the shoe is very poor and the same was within warranty. Such a poor condition cannot be there within one month. Thus, the deficiency has been proved and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

8.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to replace the defective pair of shoe to the complainant for the same amount to the satisfaction of the complainant, failing which the OPs will liable to refund the price of the shoe with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.  

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

04.09.2024         Member                          Member           President