1. The case of complainant is that being allured with massive advertisement of O.P. through electronic media, on 26.04.2017 he placed an order for different garment products with the O.P. after getting assurance to supply the best quality of products and paid Rs. 33,344/- and Rs. 45,590/- against the two numbers of retail invoice vide memo no. T3/00002490 and T11/00004970 both dated 26.04.2017 with a condition of exchange of products.  It is alleged that after receipt of the said products, complainant found some sort of defects in two numbers of product i.e. (i) Jeans vide code no. N83382 for Rs. 2,564.05 and (ii) Cotton Bomk vide code no. L95740 for Rs. 3,789/-.  It is also alleged that on approach to the O.P. for so many times for replacement of those defective products, he was called to the shop of O.P.  at Berhampur, but the O.P. did not replace those products rather they insisted for exchange.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., he filed this case with a pray to direct the O.P. to exchange the said products and to pay Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.
    
2. After receiving the notice from the Fora, the O.P. appeared in the case through their Ld. Counsel, filed their counter in shape of written version admitting the sale of alleged products to the O.P., but strictly denied the averments of the complainant contending that they have never accept orders for supply or have entered into any sort of contracts with any person or body or association for supply of clothes or garments.  Further they have contended that products once sold are only subject to exchange within a period of 7 (seven) days only and the complainant is fully aware of the terms and conditions of the O.P. as mentioned in their retails invoice, hence the complainant was only entitled for exchange within the stipulated period of 7 days.  Further they have contended as per their books of account none has approached them for any defects as reflected in their books of account on dated 26.04.2017, as such showing their no liability and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
3. Complainant has filed retails invoices to prove his submissions, whereas the O.P. did not choose to file any documents in support of their contentions.  Heard from the parties at length and perused the case record and material documents available therein.
    
4. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the alleged products from the O.P. and complainant has filed document to that effect.  It is alleged that out of total products purchased from the O.P. two number of products were found defects and on approach to the O.P. on many occasion for refund of the costs of the alleged products, the O.P. only insisted for exchange only.  Whereas the contentions of the O.P. is that if any defects find out that there is no such provision of refund of cash against the product sold but the products can be exchanged with the same cost, hence they denied to refund the costs of the alleged products and the same is reflected in their retail invoice and also in the knowledge of the complainant.  We have carefully gone through the retail invoices filed by the complainant and ascertained that the contentions of the O.P. is correct.    Hence we feel the complainant is not entitled for refund of the costs of the alleged products. 
    
5. Further the submissions of complainant regarding the fact that after coming to know about the defects of the alleged product, he immediately contacted with the O.P. for its refund, whereas, the contentions of the O.P. is that complainant never approached them for any claim and no claim is registered as per their books of account on dated 26.04.2017.  But the O.P. miserably failed to produce any documents to that effect i.e. true copy of the books of account or any other documents maintained by them. Hence the plea of O.P. regarding that the complainant has never lodged any claim with them cannot be acceptable at this moment.   Since the complainant has lodged the claim towards defects of the alleged products within time period given by the O.P., as such complainant is entitled for exchange only as mentioned in the retail invoice.  Further non submitting of any documentary evidences by the O.P. to prove their contentions, we feel, complainant must have been to the shop of the O.P. for lodging complaint with them by incurring some expenses towards conveyance and not providing any proper service to the complainant, the O.P. have well proved deficiency in service on their part.  
    
6. Hence considering the discussion made above, we feel, that the complainant is only entitled for exchange of the alleged products but not for any refund of cash.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The complainant is herewith directed to handover the alleged defective products to the O.P. for its exchange and the O.P. is also herewith directed to exchange the alleged defective products after receiving the alleged products from the complainant and all the directions should be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order this order by the parties concerned.  Further the O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 500/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- to cost of litigation to the complainant for not providing better service to the complainant, in the ends of justice.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day September, 2018. 

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.