Haryana

Ambala

CC/200/2014

SHYAM SUNDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EARO CLUB - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

28 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

Consumer Complaint No.: 200 of 2014

Date of Institution: 06.08.2014

Date of Decision: 28.06.2017

Shyam Sunder Goel, S/o Shri Vidya Sagar, R/o 1125 Kartar Nagar, Ambala City

                                                                                         ...................Complainant

VERSUS

M/s Aero Club, Woodland Store, Shop No.4, Old Delhi Road, Prem Nagar, Ambala City

                                                                                ...................Opposite Party

BEFORE:    SHRI D. N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

        SHRI PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

Present:    Complainant in person.

                    OP already ex-parte.

ORDER

PER ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

1.                  Sh. Shyam Sunder Goel, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Aero Club Woodland Store/Opposite Party (hereinafter called the “OP”). Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a pair of sandals of Woodland brand from the OP vide retail invoice No.218 dated 20.04.2014 (Annexure C-1) for a consideration of Rs.1500/- including taxes. It is averred by the complainant that within one hour of wearing of the said pair of sandals, the Woods logo was detached from one sandal; against which he tendered the sandal for replacement to OP but since no piece of same size was available at that time, the sandal was submitted on the same date for re-fixing of logo and Receipt Slip No.5 dated 20.04.2014 (Annexure C-2) was issued for the purpose. The sandal was received back after fixing of the Woods logo after 15 days. This fact has been duly accepted by the OP in its reply wherein it admitted that there was some problem relating to logo and since it had to be sent to Headquarters at Delhi, it took around 10 days. The complainant further avers that thereafter, the logo was again detached on the same day on wearing the sandals, against which the complainant approached the OP whereon the OP was ready to get the same re-fixed again but as it would had taken another 15 days (since it was to be re-fixed by the Delhi office), the complainant preferred not to get the same re-fixed from the OP as the very purpose of purchasing new sandal was going to be defeated in the process. The complainant avows that within one month of wearing, the right foot sandal got torn into two pieces. The complainant presented the sandal for replacement with written complaint on 25.06.2014 but the sandal was not accepted for replacement nor was the complaint received by the OP. Thereafter, the complainant sent his complaint letter dated 25.06.2014 (Annexure C-3) by post which remained unanswered by the OP. The postal receipt of the said letter is tendered in evidence before this forum as Annexure C-4. The complainant allegedly also tried to lodge the complaint at Woodland customer care e-mail ID
2.                  OP, in its reply has denied that the logo ever came off for a second time as alleged by the complainant.  However, OP has categorically stated in the reply that the complainant has approached the OP with the goods in question after almost two months as there was some minor pasting problem in the sole. The OP, however, refused to entertain the complainant’ request for replacement, which according to OP, if accepted, would run contrary to the policy of the company.
3.                  We have heard ld. Counsel for complainant and have also perused the case file as well as written statement/reply filed by OP.
4.                  On perusal of the Terms & Conditions written on the Bill/Retail Invoice of the said footwear (Annexure C-1), it came to the notice of this Forum that in respect of footwear, the replacement guarantee given the company is against manufacturing defect only and the warranty period is 90 days from the date of purchase. Now, since the complainant purchased the footwear on 20.04.2014 and had to approach the OP many a time, beginning with the very date of purchase i.e. 20.04.2014 (as per Annexure C-2) and lastly at the end of June, 2014 (i.e. after almost two months from the date of purchase), it is prima facie clear that goods were well within warranty period.
5.                  Moreover, according to Section 2(1)(f) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. From the facts of the case, it is ample evident that the said footwear possess manufacturing defect whereby the ‘logo’ part of it came off within no time of its use. Further, within hardly two months of its purchase, the right foot sandal got torn into two pieces. It gives impression that the material used in the making of said footwear was sub-standard. Our observation also gains impetus from the case of Sajjan Kumar Mittal vs. Ram Prakash (2007) wherein Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that if the shoe after use of two months gets damaged and it is not usable at all then the only inference that can be raised is that there was some manufacturing or inherent defect in the shoes.
6.                  Now, looking into ‘deficiency in service’ aspect, the OP, who is the authorised dealer of Woodland Company, acts in a manner which subverts his position as a trader. The OP turned down complainant’ request for replacement even though the goods in question were well within warranty period and possessed manufacturing defect as stated above. Thus, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of OP.
7.                  In view of the above discussion, we arrive at a conclusion that the goods supplied by the OPs to the Complainant suffers from manufacturing defect and that OP is guilty of deficiency in service.
8.                  For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed with costs and the OP is hereby directed to comply with the following direction within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order:-

1. To pay Rs.1500/- i.e. cost of the pair of sandals to the complainant along  with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of purchase i.e. 20.04.2014 till realization. If the OPs failed to pay the above said amount within stipulated period then they will pay the interest @ 12% per annum; and
2. To pay compensation of Rs.500/- towards harassment and mental agony; and
3. To pay a sum of Rs.400/- towards litigation expenses.

            Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to the record room.

Announced on: 28.06.2017

PUSHPENDER KUMAR                ANAMIKA GUPTA                          D.N. ARORA

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

ANAMIKA GUPTA

         MEMBER