By Sri.P.K.Sasi, President:
The complainant’s case is that he has purchased two pairs of branded shoes on 27.7.13 for an amount of Rs.3100/- from the opposite party. There was discount sale and the shoes purchased were at the discount rate. However, the opposite party had provided one year warranty. The Rebook shoe used only one day even then the upper skin of the shoe got torn out and had a scar mark with ugly look. On the same day the complainant approached the opposite party and demanded to replace the same, whereas he denied stating that it was sold at a discount sale. The 2nd shoe is also used only one day and the bottom sole of the shoe got detached due to lack of gum. As per the offer the opposite party collected the shoes for repairing and returned only after 10 days by repairing. On perusal it was found that the shoes were not repaired and the same complaints was there. Then the complainant taken back the shoes and issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party. But no relief received. According to the complainant, the opposite party sold the shoes on a discount rate only to make additional profit. They sold condemned pieces of shoes as branded ones which amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint is filed.
2. Being noticed on the complaint, the opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed version. It is admitted by the opposite party the sale of shoes. According to the opposite party, they have conducted discount sale of branded shoes at half the price to clear their old stock. They strictly denied the allegation that they have provided warranty. It was specifically told to the complainant that there will be no return of the items sold and that was mentioned in the invoice also. It is further stated by the opposite party that the shoes sold were brought to their shop after 5 days in a shabby manner possibly after using them during rain, which is not expected of to that type of shoes. If such shoes are used in rain there is possibility for spoiling the upper surface of the shoes. The shoes selected by the complainant himself and he purchased the shoes without any compulsion from the part of the opposite party. However, the opposite party is not liable to repair the shoes in the absence of guarantee, the opposite party offered the complainant to repair the shoes at their own expenses. Accordingly the shoes collected from the complainant and sent for repairing to the Ernakulam distributor and return back the shoes after rectifying the defects. All other allegations regarding the existence of damages after repairing is denied by the opposite party. The opposite party has further denied the allegation raised by the complainant that the complainant has got a doubt regarding the genuineness of the brand name labeled on the shoes. The opposite party has further stated that knowing very well the shoes are sold at discount rate only for clearing their old stock and there is no question of returning back, the complainant himself purchased after selecting the best among the stock exhibited. Hence the opposite party is no way liable to pay any compensation or cost to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. Then the case was posed for evidence and the points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade
practice committed by opposite party?
(2) If so, what cost and relief?
4. From the side of complainant, he has filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and narrated all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. He has produced three documents which are marked as Ext. A1 to A3 and 2 pairs of shoes also produced which are marked as MO1 and MO2. Ext. A1 is the retail invoice dated 27.7.13; Ext. A2 is the copy of lawyer notice and Ext. A3 is the reply notice received from the opposite party dated 16.8.13.
5. From the side of opposite party, the managing partner of the opposite party filed detailed counter proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and described all the contentions raised in the version. He was examined as RW1 and cross examined by the counsel for the complainant. The opposite party has not produced any documents. Both sides filed detailed argument notes and we heard in detail also.
6. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased two pairs of shoes from the opposite party at a reduction rate. However, the shoes purchased was branded ones, even after single use both shoes became useless. According to the complainant, the opposite party sold low quality and condemned materials in the reduction sale which amounts to unfair trade practice. Whereas the opposite party contended that they have conducted reduction sale only with the purpose to clear off their old stocks of shoes by offering 50% of discount rate. They strictly denied that they have provided any sort of guarantee for the shoes sold and the complainant purchased knowing very well regarding the quality of the shoes.
7. We have perused the documents produced from the side of complainant as well as the contents of the affidavit. It is clear from Ext. A1 retail invoice bill that the complainant has purchased two pairs of shoes for an amount of Rs.3100/-. Ext. A1 would go to show that the opposite party has provided a discount of Rs.2194/- for the two sets of shoes. It is also printed on the invoice that discount items no return. Regarding any guarantee or warranty nothing is mentioned on Ext. A1 invoice. We have perused the MO1 and MO2 produced before the Forum. Of course it is branded items but there are damages on the shoes. The sole of one shoe is detached by loosening the gum and the upper surface of the other shoe seen damaged. It may be the reason as alleged by the opposite party that the complainant might have used the shoes during rain. Admittedly the shoes are purchased by the complainant in a reduction sale by understanding that the materials sold in the reduction sale would be an old stock. The damages seen on the shoes are may be because of its oldness. Moreover, there is no material produced before us to show that there was any warranty or assurance provided by the opposite party regarding its quality. Considering the points discussed hereinabove, we don’t find any reason to believe that the opposite party has committed any sort of unfair trade practice. These are only common possibilities usually happening in the discount sales. The discount sales are conducting only to clear off their old stocks.
8. In the result we dismiss this complaint without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 19th day of February 2016.
