Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/28/2015

Ashok Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s College Shoes, Woodland Store - Opp.Party(s)

Aruna Sachdeva

01 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/28/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	16/01/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	01/06/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Ashok Bhardwaj s/o Sh. Rameshwar Dass, R/o H.No.3481, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   M/s College Shoes, Woodland Store, SCO 30, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

2.   Gokaldas Exports Limited, 70, Mission Road Bangalore, through its Managing Director.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA                PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Ms. Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate
For OPs	:	Sh. Sandeep Walia, Authorized Representative

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Jacket from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.3462/- vide retail invoice dated 24.12.2014 (Annexure C-1), for use by his daughter. The said jacket was having warranty of 15 days against any shrinkage or colour fastness from the date of purchase (Annexure C-2). It has been averred that daughter of the Complainant wore the said jacket on 25.12.2014 and found that wherever there was contact of water on it, on that place, its colour got changed (i.e. became darker at that place). Accordingly, on 26.12.2014 the Complainant went to Opposite Party No.1 with aforesaid problem. The Opposite Party No.1 received the said jacket on 26.12.2014 and issued repair slip no.649/Chd (Annexure C-3). The Opposite Party No.1 gave date of delivery as 15.01.2015. It has been alleged that the winter was in its peak, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not deliver the aforesaid jacket till 15.01.2015 which amounts to deficiency in service. It has been alleged that the aforesaid jacket was having manufacturing defect, otherwise there was no reason for fading (changing) of its colour merely on touch of water. The price tag attached to the jacket is annexed as Annexure C-4. It has been further alleged that when the Complainant did not receive any intimation regarding the jacket in question from the Opposite Party No.1, he approached the Opposite Party No.1 on its landline no. 0172-6536887 on 15.01.2015. However, the Opposite Party No.1 informed that it had not received the jacket in question from the manufacturing agency. When asked that how many days more will be taken by the Opposite Parties for delivering the jacket, the Opposite Party No.1 did not give any concrete reply. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainants, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainants have filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

3.     Opposite Parties in their joint reply have denied that the problem was of water marks. It has been pleaded that the Complainant had brought the jacket to the Opposite Parties which had spilled over oil marks on it. Though the same were deep spilled oil marks still the Opposite Parties offered to help the Complainant by getting the same washed. The Complainant has deliberately concealed the factum of these oil marks. It has been denied that the answering Opposite Parties did not keep their commitment of delivering the jacket on the promised date. The Opposite Parties had telephonically informed the Complainant to collect the jacket on the said date, but he never turned up to collect the same and instead demanded a new pair along with compensation. It has been asserted that the spilled over oil marks by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a manufacturing defect. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

7.     The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one Jacket from the Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.3462/ on 24.12.2014 vide retail invoice Annexure C-1 for his daughter. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the terms & conditions of the product with specific mention that garments are having warranty of 15 days against any shrinkage or colour fastness from the date of purchase. As per the case of the Complainant the colour of the Jacket in question changed due to the contact of the water on it. Accordingly, a Complaint was registered with Opposite Party No.1 and Annexure C-3 is the repair slip issued by it on 26.12.2014 with mention of the date of delivery as 15.01.2015. Over this repair slip, there is mention that the product is in good condition and within warranty and the Complaint is regarding colour fade. Opposite Party No.1 has endorsed over Annexure C-3 specifically for the expert opinion regarding the complaint. The allegation of the Complainant is that inspite of the Complaint to Opposite Party No.1 within the warranty period it was not entertained and his daughter was deprived of using the product in question as the same is in possession of Opposite Party No.1 till date. 

 

8.     The stand taken by Opposite Parties is that the Complainant himself never turned up to collect the Jacket even on being contacted. It has been further contended that the defect was not a manufacturing one, but was the result of gross negligence on the part of the Complainant. There is specific mention in the written arguments of the Opposite Parties that they offered a new Jacket or some other summer collection, but the Complainant refused to accept the same. 

 

9.     A careful perusal of the file reveals that as per Annexure C-3, Opposite Party No.1 had to send the product for expert opinion, but it had not placed any relevant report. Further no cogent/authentic proof has been attached by the Opposite Parties to show that they ever contacted the Complainant for collecting the Jacket after taking necessary action.  We feel that the act of the Opposite Parties in not providing proper services to the Complainant inspite of the product being within the warranty period and offer of replacement during the pendency of the case, prove deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

10.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.3462/- being the invoice price of the defective jacket.

 

[b]  To make payment of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

[c]  To make payment of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

11.     The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

12.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

01^st June, 2015                          

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER