According to the complaint, brief facts are that on 27.1.2014, the complainant had purchased one pair of  PUMA Shoes for  Rs.2700/- vide bill No.8608  from M/s  Ajmer Enterprises  i.e. from opposite party No.1.   Opposite party no.2 is the manufacturing company of the shoes. After some time,  on 13.3.2014 complainant surprised to see that the stitching of the shoes different. When the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 several times  with his said grievances, opposite party No.1 refused to listen,  rather on the other hand misbehaved with the complainant; hence, this complaint, filed on 07.05.2014;  for  a direction to the opposite parties, for the refund of its price  with upto date interest,  besides damages for his harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                The opposite party No.2 has failed to come present despite service. Hence, he was proceeded against ex parte by this Forum vide order dated 18.12.2014.

3.                The opposite parties No.1 has filed reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the complainant has manipulated false and frivolous allegations against the answering opposite party. It has been alleged that the complainant only to tarnish the image of a big and renowned multinational company like PUMA. The complainant has filed this complaint only to harass and humiliate the answering opposite party just to extract money from him. In fact one pair of shoe was purchased by him during sale conducted on 27.1.2014 by the company and as per norms of the company an article purchased during sale does not at all covered within guarantee of the company. This fact was disclosed to the complainant at the time of purchase itself and was also duly mentioned on the bill of purchasing the said shoes. It has further been alleged that the said shoes were not at all damaged in any manner. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his own supporting affidavit Ex.P-1,  Photostat copy of  bill dated  27.1.2014 Ex. P-2 and  photo copy of shoes deposited receipt dated 13.3.2014  Ex.P-3.

5.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard complainant in person and the counsel for the opposite party No.1.

6.                The complainant in person reiterated the contents of the complaint. The opposite party No.1 reiterated the contents of the  reply.

7.                As per the contention of the complainant that one pair shoes of PUMA company purchased by him for Rs.2700/- vide bill No.8608 dated 27.01.2014. On 13.3.2014, the complainant shocked  to see that the stitching of the shoes was different. Then he approached the opposite party No.1 several times with his said grievances, opposite party No.1 refused to listen. The opposite party No.1 has denied the allegation of the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award Rs.1,000/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant against the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay the said amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing of this order and may recover the said amount from the opposite party No.2.

Dated:04.09.2015