Delhi

New Delhi

CC/96/2017

Ankur Aeron - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Puma Stores - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

 

                       CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                        (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                     ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                     NEW DELHI-110001

 

         Case No.C.C./96/2017                                          Dated:

           In the matter of:

            Ankur Aeron,

            S/o Sh. Rakesh Aeron,

          R/o House No.19, Jatan B-3,

          Bijnor-246701(UP).               

       …… Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Puma Stores,

Dealer in Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd.,

No.16, F-Block, Inner Circle,

Delhi- Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2. M/s Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd.(Head Office),

No.500, CMH Road, Indiranagar,

Bengaluru-560038, Karnataka, India.

                ……. Opposite parties

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

       

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that on 8.12.2016,  the complainant purchased pair of shoes  for a sum of Rs.6,999/- from OP-1 against the bill No.5780.  It is alleged that the complainant purchased the shoes in question for special occasion such as attending the party until then the box of footwear was kept untouched.   On one occasion, the complainant opened the box to wear the shoes in question then only he came to know that two similar pieces of shoes(right side) were placed inside the box.  The complainant could not used the shoes in question, the same become useless to him, as such the complainant approached OP-1 for the replacement of the same but the OP  blatantly refused to replace the shoes.  The complainant also sent registered A.D. notice dt. 6.1.2017 to OP-1 but OP-1 neither replied to legal notice nor had complied the same, hence this complaint.

2.     Notice was issued to both the OPs but none appeared on behalf of OPs, therefore, they were ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte on 2.2.2015.

3.     Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit.  

4.     We have heard argument advanced at the Bar on behalf of complainant and have perused the record.

5.     From the un-rebutted testimony of the complaint and documents placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true. 

 

7.     Bare perusal of the Invoice dt. 8.12.2016 makes it clear that the complainant had purchased the shoes in question from OP-1.  OP-1 ought to have replaced the shoes in question as it has provided  the two similar pieces of shoes(right side) to the complainant.  Non-redressal of the grievance of the complainant amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP-1.

        We, therefore, hold the OP-1 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:

i).  Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.6,999/- along with interest @  9% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e.  14.2.2017  till payment.

ii)   Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as compensation towards harassment, mental agony and pain which will also include the cost of litigation.

 

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 04/10/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                   (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

                                         MEMBER                                                         MEMBER