Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/30/2024

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.K. Dogra

04 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/30/2024
Date of Institution	:	5.1.2024
Date of Decision	:	04/06/2024

 

Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Battu Ram resident of H.No. 102, Sector 27-A Chandigarh.

… Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Aero Club (Woodland) through its authorized representative/manger SCO No. 803 NAC Kalka Highway Manimajra Chandigarh.

Fresh  Address:-

a)       Woodland

          C-16, Chatpur Road, Block C, Phase-2, Noida-201305

 

b)      Woodland SCO No. 30 Sector 17 E

          Chandigarh-160017.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	OP exparte

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  on 28.7.2021 the complainant had purchased shoes  bearing article No.1869115, camel colour (hereinafter referred to be as subject shoes) for Rs.3995/-  vide invoice Annexure C-1. Soon after purchase of the subject shoes  it developed certain defects after wearing it though the same were not visible when the same were purchased.  The defect on the ankle part of the shoe was brought to the notice of the concerned person but he was not ready to listen about the defect pointed out by the complainant rather asked the complainant by the said person to use it  and as such after few days of its use the defect became visible. Moreover, there was mis-comfort faced by complainant while wearing it because of this defect.  The complainant again brought the said defect to the notice of the concerned person  of the OP and on this the representative of the  OP advised the complainant to deposit the subject shoes so that  it may be sent for repair. Accordingly, the complainant deposited  the same vide repair slip Annexure C-2 dated 20.12.2021 and asked the complainant to collect the same after one month. After one month when the complainant went to collect the subject shoes from the OP the complainant was informed that the defect is not under warranty. However, the said defect was noticed during warranty period especially when the complainant purchased the subject shoes on 28.7.2021 and after few months the said defect became visible. The refusal by the OP to repair the subject shoes amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is alleged that when the complainant went to take delivery of the shoes, the OP asked the complainant to pay repair charges,  knowing fully well  that the subject shoes was within gurantee  period and since the subject shoes was found defective within guarantee period, the complainant was not obliged to pay repair charges.  Hence, the complainant was compelled to send legal notice Annexure C-3 to the OP but with no positive result. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP  was properly served and when OP did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was  proceeded against ex-parte on 18.4.2024.

2. In order to prove his claim the complainant has tendered/proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully..
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that  the complainant has purchased the subject shoes from the OP as is evident from Annexure C-1 and the subject shoes had developed defect within few days of its purchase and the complainant had approached the OP for repair of the shoes and the OP asked the complainant to pay repair charges,  the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the act of the OP asking the complainant for repair charges amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that  the complainant has purchased the subject shoes  for an amount of Rs.3995/-. The main grouse of the complainant  is that when he went to OP for collection of the subject shoes,  the OP asked for the repair charges despite of the fact that the shoes were well within warranty period  and the aforesaid act of the OP is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
   3.  The complainant in its duly sworn in affidavit in para No.3 stated that after few days of its use the defect became visible  and the complainant faced discomfort while wearing the subject shoes and this fact was brought to the notice of the OP but it insisted to wear it as such.  This allegation  of the complainant   has gone unrebutted as the OP has not come forward to contradict the allegations of the complainant through any cogent and concrete evidence. Even from the record, it is manifested that the OP has failed to repair the subject shoes free of cost despite of the fact that the same had become defective within few days of its purchase. Hence, it is safe to hold that the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed
4.  In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to return the subject shoes to the complainant after repairing the same free of charge.
2. to pay lump-sum amount of ₹1500/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him and towards litigation charges.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(i) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 04/06/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member