Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/225/2024

SHRI DUTT SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S QURESHI SHOE MAKER - Opp.Party(s)

28 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/225/2024
Date of Institution	:	03/06/2024
Date of Decision	:	28/10/2024

 

 

Shri Dutt Sharma r/o H.No.284, Sector 44A, Chandigarh 160047.

                                ...  Complainant

V E R S U S

Qureshi Shoe Maker, Shop No.9, Sector 17C, Near HDFC Bank, CMC Parking, Chandigarh 160017.

…. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:
	Complainant in person.
	OP ex-parte

       

ORDER BY BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA, MEMBER

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that on 15.1.2023 he alongwith his wife visited the shop of the OP and purchased two pair of shoes.  However, on 16.1.2023 when the complainant put the shoe for attending a meeting, their bottom (sole) got damaged due to which his foot also got wounded.  On the same day, complainant visited the OP but it refused to refund the amount back.  On insistence of the complainant the OP issued back dated bill of 15.1.2023 of ₹1,200/- for one pair of shoes against the total sum paid of ₹1,700/- for two pair of shoes.  The OP kept a pair of show and told that it would send the replacement through courier but the OP refused to issue any bill for the shoe purchased by his wife for ₹500/-. However, on 18.1.2023 the OP delivered the same old pair of shoes to the complainant after repair.  The complainant visited the OP on 19.1.2023 for refund and also sent notice, but, with no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount paid alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.        Despite due service, OP did not put in appearance before this Commission and accordingly it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 1.8.2024.
3.        Complainant led evidence in support of his case.
4.        We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the documents on record.
5.        It is observed from the record that as per own case of the complainant he had purchased two pair of shoes (i.e. one for himself and one for his wife) from the OP by paying consideration of ₹1,700/- and out of them one (i.e. for himself) was defective for which he approached the OP on 16.1.2023 and the OP assured to replace the same and send the replacement through courier at his residence.  However, surprisingly the OP delivered the same old pair of shoes to the complainant on 18.1.2023.  In support of his case the complainant has placed on record the copies of bill dated 15.1.2023 issued by the OP qua the shoe in question for ₹1,200/- as well as the legal notices dated 3.2.2023 & 12.4.2023 sent to the OP.
6.        However, despite service of notice, OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and chose to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of the OP draws an adverse inference against it. The non appearance of the OP shows that it has nothing to say in its defence vis a vis the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the averments of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted and the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP is proved.
7.        Coming to the quantum of relief, no doubt the complainant has sought refund of entire amount of ₹1,700/- but since he has not alleged any defect or deficiency qua the other pair of shoes (meant for his wife), no refund or replacement can be allowed qua the same.
8.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed and the OP is directed as under:-

1. to refund ₹1,200/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of its payment by the complainant i.e. 15.1.2023 till the date of its actual realization. However, the complainant shall return the defective pair of shoes to the OP.
2. to pay lump sum compensation of ₹1,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him.

9.          This order be complied with by the OP within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
10.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
11.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED 28/10/2024 hg	[PAWANJIT SINGH] PRESIDENT
	[BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA] MEMBER