Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/315/2019

Gaurav Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s College Shoes - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/315/2019
Date of Institution	:	03/05/2019
Date of Decision	:	03/12/2019

 

Gaurav Jain S/o Ashok Kumar Jain, R/o H.No. 3137, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     M/s College Shoes, SCO 30, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

 

[2]     Aero Club (Woodland India), 2168, Gurudwara Road, Opposite Post Office, New Delhi – 110005.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR. S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Anand Rohilla, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         The facts, in brief, are, the Complainant purchased a Woodland Jacket worth Rs.3498/- from Opposite Party No.1 on 24.01.2019 vide retail invoice Annexure C-1. As the Complainant wore the Jacket, the same tore from the waist and inside cotton filings came out. The matter was immediately reported to Opposite Party No.1 who issued repair slip Annexure C-2 and thereafter did nothing to redress the grievance of the Complainant. Even the repeated requests of the Complainant to replace the defective jacket proved to be futile. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 28.03.2019 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 contested the complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the jacket was damaged due to physical damage by the Complainant and the warranty is always of manufacturing defect. As a goodwill gesture, the jacket was repaired, but the Complainant refused to take the same and demanded refund of the cost price. Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.3 filed his separate reply, inter alia, pleading that he has acted in the capacity of an agent only and thus he cannot be held liable for any violation whatsoever done by the Company.  Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
6.          The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Parties.
8.         The factum of purchase of the Jacket in question on payment of Rs.3498/- is proved from the retail invoice dated 24.01.2019 (Annexure C-1).
9.         Annexure C-2 which is a repair slip reveals that the matter regarding defective stitching and fabric cut in the jacket was reported to the Opposite Party No.1 on 29.01.2019. Importantly, the jacket has been shown to be within the warranty period and the matter was relegated to the Head Office for expert opinion.  
10.         Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that the jacket has not torn due to any manufacturing defect but due to carelessness of the Complainant as there is apparent physical damage and the Complainant has also affixed the adhesive tape/cello tape on the said portion.
11.         We are not impressed with the aforesaid contention; in as much as, the adhesive/cello tape was affixed on the said portion to stop the cotton falling inside the jacket. It is noteworthy that the onus to prove that the jacket was torn due to carelessness of the Complainant and not on account of any manufacturing defect lay at the door of the Opposite Parties. However, there is no concrete evidence regarding the said fact, thus the above assertion is held to be hollow. 
12.         On these precincts, the act of the Opposite Parties in not replacing the defective Jacket, especially when it is within the warranty period proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
13.         In our opinion, the Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.3498/- to purchase the Jacket in question having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Customer Care Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties.          
14.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.3498/- being the invoice price of the Jacket to the Complainant;

 [b]   To pay Rs.1500/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.1500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

15.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till these are paid, apart from compliance of the directions as in sub-para [c].
16.         The Complainant shall return the defective Jacket in question, if it is in his possession, to the Opposite Parties, after the compliance of the order.
17.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/12/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”