BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

                                                                   REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 440 of 2017

Date of Instt. 15.11.2017

Date of Decision: 20.03.2018

Varun Rana S/o Sh. Madan Lal Rana R/o H. No.264, First Floor, Defence Colony, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Punjab Sales C/o 408-Lajpat Nagar, Company Mega Showroom, Jalandhar-144001

Trough its Prop./Part/M.D./Authorized Sig/Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. (Head Office), Liberty House, Liberty Road, P.O. Box No.103, Karnal-132001, Haryana.

Through its C.M.D./M.D./DIR./Director Finance/Authorized Representative.

..….…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. AS Sohal, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Opposite Parties exparte.

Order

Harvimal Dogra (Member)

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Varun Rana under the 'Consumer Protection Act' against the OPs, on the allegations of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence with the prayer that the OPs may be directed to refund the amount of Shoes of Rs.4098/- and also be directed to compensate the complainant for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a pair of Shoe of Liberty brand from OP No.1 shop having article No.LS-941, vide Invoice No.1021 on dated 27.04.2017 of Rs.4098/-. At the time of purchase, the OP No.1 gave assurance to the complainant that the shoe is durable and the company provides full replacement guarantee. After one week, the complainant approached OP No.1 for the defectiveness of the pair of shoe i.e. crack in sole of the shoe and OP No.1 assured the complainant that the pair will be changed by the OP No.2 and requested the complainant to come after 2-3 days and when the complainant approached after 3 days, then OP No.1 again said to the complainant to come after 2-3 days as the shoe of the complainant has been sent to the OP No.2 for replacement. That the complainant made repeated visits to OP No.1, but the OP No.2 has not replaced the shoe. After Six and half months, the OP No.1 and 2 were demanding illegal 25% more (Rs.1025/-) of the total paid cost of Rs.4098/- as amount of replacement charges. The OP No.1 and 2 have wasted the time of the complainant and gave him mental pain and unnecessary harassment and moreover, now the complainant has no keen interest in replacement and wants that the OPs should refund the amount of the shoe, hence the complainant filed this complaint.

3. After the formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs, but despite service both the OPs failed to appear and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

4. In order to prove the exparte claim, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and then closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file, evidence and documents produced on the file by the complainant very minutely.

6. Precisely, the case framed by the complainant is only that he purchased a pair of Liberty Shoe for Rs.4098/- on 27.04.2017 and accordingly, the complainant has brought on the file photostat copy of the Invoice Ex.C-1. He further alleged that after one week, there was a crack in the sole of the shoe and he approached OP No.1 for the replacement of the shoe. The OP No.1 assured the complainant that the pair will be changed and a new pair will be given to the complainant. The pair of the shoe were later sent to OP No.2 for replacement. After repeated visits, the shoe was not replaced with new one and is still in the custody of the OP No.2, the OP has failed to replace the shoe and moreover, after the period of Six and half months, OP No.1 and 2 demanded 25% more as replacement charges, itself shows the unfair trade practice, which is followed by the OPs. The OPs have mislead the complainant and did not give proper service to him. The complainant suffered in the hands of the OPs. Every time OP No.1 gave assurance to the complainant that the pair of shoe will be replaced with the new one, but every time they linger the matter on one pretext or other. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. As per the version of the complainant, the shoe is still lying with the OP No.2 is accepted because this version of the complainant has gone un-challenged and un-rebutted as OP did not bother to appear and contest the complaint before this Forum. So, under these circumstances, we find force in the contention of the counsel for the complainant and find deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs and hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

7. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to refund the amount of shoes Rs.4098/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint, till realization and further OPs are directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for the mental harassment and agony to the complainant and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. The compliance of the said order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

20.03.2018 Member President