Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 165.
Instituted on : 19.04.2018.
Decided on : 08.07.2019.
Ex.Subedar Pawan Kumar age 51 years, s/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal Resident of House no.925/21, Prem Nagar Rohtak, District Rohtak, Haryana, PIN-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Nike India Pvt. Ltd. Ground & 1st Floor, Olympia Building No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Park, CV Raman Nagar, Bangalore PIN-560093.
- Manager, 2041-NCC Group Headquarters, CSD Canteen, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sanjit Kadian Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.M.K.Munjal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Amarjeet Ahlawat, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased one pair of Nike sports Shoes from opposite party no.2 vide cash memo no.009558 dated 10.05.2017 for Rs.2050.58 with 6 months warranty. That due to fair wear and tear, net of the shoes worn out in October 2017. That on 5th October 2017 itself, complainant went to NCC group Headquarters, CSD Canteen Rohtak and contacted the Canteen Manager, who told that they cannot exchange/repair the shoes and advised to contact Nike Showroom at Rohtak. That on 10.10.2017 complainant went to Nike Showroom at Delhi Road, Rothak and show the shoes alongwith the cash memo at the counter and the employee told that they are unable to replace/repair the shoes as the same have been purchased from Army CSD Canteen. That on 06.01.2018 the complainant sent an email to the opposite party No.1 on their customer care email id requesting the company to replace the shoes with a new pair/similar model and also attached the photographs of the shoes. That the company replied that they can replace the shoes, in case of manufacturing defect within 06 months from the date of purchase and the complainant told that the net of shoes worn out within 3 months of purchase but the Nike authorities refused to resolve the issue stating that the shows were purchased from CSD Canteen. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the shoes or pay Rs.2051/- as cost of shoes alongwith other expenses of Rs.5000/- on account of travelling & correspondence and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that pursuant to receipt of the request from the complainant for replacement of shoes, beyond warranty period, the answering respondent got the same checked and found that the damage to the shoes was on account of usage and there was no manufacturing defect in the shoes. In the absence of any manufacturing defect, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. On merits, it is denied that the complainant contacted the company showroom at Rohtak and the respondent no.1 has not been able to verify any of the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint as the complainant has not filed any document in support of such allegations. Furthermore, according to the UGC guidelines, the complainant was required to approach the respective Area CSD Depot within 30 days from the date of collection and all defective items are to be returned to URC/CSD Depots and not directly to the firm. It is further submitted that even if the liability was to be fixed on respondent No.1, no relief can be claimed by the complainant as the warranty period only extends to 6 months and any complaint made after that would not be entertained. That complainant has been unable to show any deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed reply and in preliminary objections, it is submitted that according to Unit Run Canteens(URC) Guidelines, all complaints should be lodged with the respective area CSD Depot immediately, no later than 30 days from the date of collection and all defective items should be returned to URC/CD Depots only and not directly to the firm. That in case the complaint has not been handled in a satisfactory manner, the concerned Regional Manager or CSD HQ Management Service Branch should be contacted. On merits, it is submitted that it is admitted to the extent that the complainant purchased one pair of nike sport shoes on 10.05.2017 vide cash memo no.009558 dated 10.05.2017 for Rs.2050/- and has submitted that para no.2 to 9 of the complaint do not concern the answering opposite party and has prayed for rejection of complaint.
3. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 30.01.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/1, documents Ex.RW1/2 to Ex.RW1/3 and closed his evidence on dated 10.04.2019. Ld. counsel for opposite party no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A and has closed his evidence on dated 10.04.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per copy of bill Ex.C2 dated 10.05.2017, complainant had purchased one pair of shoes worth Rs.2050.58 from the opposite party No.2 . As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the net of alleged shoes were torn out within warranty period and he contacted the opposite party no.2 for the alleged defect, but he was advised to contact the showroom of Nike company. Accordingly he contacted the showroom of company at Rohtak on 10.10.2017 but they refused to replace the shoes. Regarding the visit of complainant in the showroom, they have not maintained any visitors register. Hence the complainant is unable to prove the same. Complainant also sent emails dated 16.01.2018 & 29.01.2018 to the company but the same were turned down by the company.
6. In the present case, it is not disputed that the shoes in question were having 6 months warranty period and as per the warranty policy placed on record as Ex.RW1/3, it is submitted that : “If a claim in respect to a product (“Claim Product”) is within warranty period(6 months from the date of purchase), the retailers/stores would take all the required information, listed below against a valid claim slip and email the same to 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 to replace the pair of shoes in question with a new one of same model and to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the shoes in question to the opposite parties at the time of replacement.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.07.2019.
……....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
