BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 272 of 2016
Date of Institution : 6.10.2016
Date of Decision : 18.1.2018.
Parveen Kumari wife of Shri Rajender Kumar son of Shri Vakil Chand, H. No.394, HUDA, Sector-20, Part-1, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Om Parkash Sushil Kumar, through its Prop. Punjab National Bank Lane, Rori Bazar, Sirsa.
2. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Unitech Commercial Tower-IInd, 5th Floor, Sector-45, Block-B, Greenwood City, Gurgaon (Haryana).
3. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through its Chief Executive Officer, Unitech Commercial Tower-IInd, 5th Floor, Sector-45, Block-B, Greenwood City, Gurgaon (Haryana).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Y.K. Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased women lower dryfit from opposite party no.1 against an amount of Rs.6497/- vide bill no.SC476 dated 24.6.2016 and op no.1 had given full manufacturing guarantee against any kind of defect therein. That after purchase of the women lower/ trouser, she used the same with all due care and caution and instructions of the company. It is further averred that just after few days of its purchase, the complainant shocked to see that colour of trouser has become faded just after two three washes and the stitching of the trouser has also been unraveled. The complainant approached op no.1 and complained about the defect in the trouser and requested to change the trouser as op no.1 is the authorized dealer of ops no.2 and 3 and he has every liability of any kind of defect in the product of the company but at that time op no.1 instead of listening the complainant refused to admit the genuine claim of the complainant and also misbehaved with her. That thereafter the complainant approached the ops no.2 and 3 through email facility and complained about the defect in the trouser on 28.7.2016 but they did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and asked to send the full particulars of the item in question as such further the complainant again sent mail on 30.8.2016 but they did not give any reply nor have taken any action in this respect. That the complainant took more than hundred rounds to the op no.1 for getting his grievance redressed but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant purchased three items i.e. Articles No.AJ4594 worth Rs.1799/-, AJ9365 for Rs.2499/- and AJ4726 for Rs.2199/- i.e. for a total sum of Rs.6497/- vide bill No.SC476 dated 24.6.2016. The warranty on the above three items was given/ extended by the answering op on behalf of the manufacturing company as per warranty policy of the manufacturing company which is duly printed on the aforesaid bill. The warranty on the above three items was subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of warranty policy. The complainant has not given the full description of the product which allegedly got defect, since the complainant purchased three products from the answering op. It is further submitted that complainant never reported any alleged defect to op no.1, so the question of refusing the claim of complainant does not arise. It appears that complainant has not used and took care of the product with due care and caution and has used some inferior quality of detergent while washing the product. The products manufactured by ops no.2 and 3 are of higher standard and there has never been any such complaint in the products. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 in their separate written statement have asserted that the answering ops subjects its product to stringent quality control mechanisms to ensure that the product which reaches the consumers is free from defects and above all is genuine. The answering ops understands and respects its consumer’s wants and needs and therefore enjoys tremendous goodwill. That the product purchased by complainant did not suffer from any manufacturing dedfect but it is submitted that fading and unraveling of stitching of the said product as alleged by complainant is because of undue care and mishandling of the said product by the complainant. It is incumbent upon the complainant to establish the veracity of the allegations and to prove that the product suffers from the defect as alleged. The impugned product thus must be referred to an appropriate laboratory pursuant to the provision contained under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
4. The complainant produced her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, purchase invoice Ex.C1 and copies of emails Ex.C2 and Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1. The ops no.2 and 3 did not lead any evidence.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has conceded that three items were purchased for a total sum of Rs.6497/- vide bill dated 24.6.2016 but however he has mentioned the purchase of women lower dryfit from opposite party no.1 against an amount of Rs.6497/-. Further the perusal of the complaint reveals that the colour of the trouser has become faded just after 2/3 washes and stitching of the trouser has also been unraveled. There is no reference of three items which were purchased by complainant from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.6497/- in the averments made by complainant in his complaint. Under these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that complainant had purchased one women lower for a sum of Rs.6497/-.
6. Though, the complainant has claimed that the colour of the trouser has been faded just after 2/3 washes and stitching of the trouser has also been unraveled, it is settle principle of law that if there is any manufacturing defect in the colour or fabrication of the product, the manufacturer is under legal obligation to get the product replaced without any cost.
7. In view of the above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace one trouser of the complainant colour of which has become faded and stitching of the trouser has also been unraveled with a new one without any cost within 15 days on receipt of the defective trouser from the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:18.1.2018. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
