DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 477 of 20.12.2018

                                      Decided on:   26.9.2019

Nitin Singla son of Parveen Kumar, resident of Ward No.9, Krishna Basti Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

M/s Aero Club (Woodland Store), SCO 117, Adjoining Gopal Sweets, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt.Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal,    Member                                        

ARGUED BY:

                                       Complainant Nitin Singla, in person.

                                      Sh.Karanpreet Singh, Store Manager for OP.                                  

 ORDER

                                    B.S.DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1. This complaint is filed by Nitin Singla (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against  M/s Aero Club (Woodland Store)   (hereinafter referred to as OP) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased a pair of shoes of Woodland for Rs.2337/- vide bill dated 15.7.2018. At the time of purchase of shoes, the OP assured complainant that the said product is the best in quality and as per terms and conditions of company there is three months’ warranty on the said shoes. The OP also assured complainant, if some defect arises in the shoes, then in that eventuality the OP shall replace the same or refund the whole amount of costs.
3. It is pleaded that after some days the sole of shoes  damaged automatically and the complainant approached the OP with the shoes and the OP demanded the bill of the shoes, but at that time the complainant was not in possession of the said bill as the same was misplaced at that time and the OP agreed to pay Rs.1948/- vide repair slip dated 11.9.2018.After some days, the complainant approached the OP but the OP asked the complainant that he will be paid Rs.1300/- because the complainant has not original bill.
4. It is also pleaded that thereafter the complainant found the bill of the said shoes and approached the OP and requested to return the whole of the amount and gave the copy of the bill to OP and the OP assured the complainant that now the price of shoes of Rs.2337/- will be refunded. Again the complainant approached the OP and requested him to refund the costs of shoes and also sent e-mails to the website of the OP but the OP has not paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant.
5. It is further alleged that such act of the OP is unfair trade practice which caused mental agony & harassment to the complainant.
6. In the sequel of these facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for giving following directions to the OPs:

1. To refund the amount of Rs.2337/- to the complainant;
2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-
3. To pay Rs.5500/- as costs of the litigation .

7. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed its written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is vague and lacks material particulars; has been filed with malicious intentions coupled with oblique motives and the OP agreed to exchange the new pair of shoes on production of original bill.
8. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased one pair of shoes of brand of “Woodland” vide retail invoice dated 15.7.2018.It is also contended that the OP is in fact known for sturdy and high quality products and as such is well known brand not only in India but also has a vast patronage in the international market also. The present case is apparently made out with ulterior design to implicate the OP and fleece some good money out of it.
9. It is also averred that the complainant has purchased the shows in ‘SALE’ and as per the company’s policy the replacement guarantee is only in respect of the manufacturing defect on production of original bill. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
10. Both the parties afforded opportunity to adduce their evidence in their support.
11. On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents,Exs.C1 to C28, copies of e-mails.Ex.C29, copy of receipt given by the OP, Ex.C30 original bill and closed his evidence .
12. The authorized representative i.e. Store Incharge Sh. Karanpreet Singh has tendered into evidence his own affidavit, Ex.OPA and closed the evidence of OP.
13. We have carefully perused the complaint of the complainant vis-à-vis written version of OP and gone through the evidence produced on file and heard the arguments.
14. Admittedly a pair of shoes was purchased by the complainant vide bill dated 15.7.2018 from the OP. However, after few days of this purchase the shoes were damaged from the sole. The complainant approached the OP with the damaged shoes but the OP demanded the original bill which was not in possession of the complainant being misplaced at that time. However, the OP agreed to pay Rs.1948/- as is evident from the repair slip (Ex.C29) issued by the OP. Subsequently after few days complainant approached the OP for collecting the promised amount but the OP backed out of his promise and offered to pay Rs.1300/- only because the complainant having not being in possession of original bill. Thereafter the bill was traced out and the complainant again approached the OP with original bill and asked for refund of the price i.e.Rs.2337/- of the shoes. The OP agreed and assured the complainant of the refund of Rs.2337/- shortly. Number of e-mails were exchanged between the complainant and customer care of Woodland in this context which fact is corroborated from Exs.C1 to C28. OP linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and forced the complainant to file this complaint.
15. As has been discussed above, the pair of shoes was purchased for Rs.2337/- vide bill,Ex.C30 and the OP issued repair slip,Ex.C29 to the complainant. In the reply the OP has admitted that on production of original bill OP would exchange the shoes in question with new pair of shoes.The OP has not produced any such policy document of the company that damaged shoes were replaced  only on the production of original bill of purchase. Even on production of original bill, the OP neither replaced the shoes nor refunded the price i.e. Rs.2337/-. If we consider the matter in affirmative prospective, it was imperative  on the part of OP to consider the replacement of damaged shoes on the day one when the complainant contacted the OP because the duplicate copy of the bill of the shoes in question was lying with the OP.It is just a mere flimsy excuse which is not at all tenable under any circumstances that on the production of original bill the needful can be done as alleged.So it is an admitted fact that the purchased pair of shoes was not of good quality which developed defects within few days of it’s purchase. It clearly amounts to sale of defective goods. When the complainant had approached the OP for repair or replacement of the pair of shoes, the later should have accepted the request of the complainant and not driven the complainant to file the present complaint, it could avoid unnecessary harassment and mental torture to him.
16. Thus allowing the complaint, we direct the OP to refund the price i.e. Rs.2337/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of purchase till payment with another sum of Rs.2000/-as compensation inclusive of costs for harassment, inconvenience and mental torture.OP is also burdened  with Rs.5000/- as punitive measure which shall be deposited by him in the Army welfare Fund Battle Casualities as per the details of bank account given below:

Fund Name: Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties

Branch Name:Syndicate Bank

Branch Code:9055

IFSC Code:SYNB0009055

Account No.:90552010165915

17. Order be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

    The complaint could not be decided with the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:26.9.2019

                                           B.S.DHALIWAL                  INDERJEET KAUR

                                           MEMBER                              MEMBER