Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/94

Sri Sampad Choudhury. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Rahul Garments, Action Exclusive Showroom. - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs.R.Shil.

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  94 of 2014

         Sampad Choudhury,
         S/O- Sri Bidhu Ch. Choudhury,
         Bholananda Palli,
         New Capital Complex,
         Agartala, West Tripura.        ...............Complainant.
    

         ______VERSUS______

     1. M/S Ruhul Garments, 
         Action Exclusive Showroom,
         H.G.B. Road, Agartala.        ............Opposite Party.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant     : The Complainant in person.            
                                              
For the O.P.             : The O.P. in person.    
                  

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  18.11.15

J U D G M E N T
        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the consumer protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sampad Choudhury of Bholananda Palli, Capital Complex, Agartala against the O.P., namely M/S Rahul Garments, Action Exclusive Showroom, H.G.B Road, Agartala over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.P.
2.            The fact of the case gathered from the record is that the complainant purchased a pair of shoes of model No- G-3G 858 from the O.P. firm on 24.09.14 at Rs.1099/- vide bill No- 08494 dated 24.09.14. It is alleged that after 45 days of use of the shoes it was found to be defective. The complainant then approached the O.P. to replace the defective shoes with a new one but the O.P. did not respond to his request. On the contrary, they misbehaved with him. According to the complainant, the O.P. by not replacing the defective shoes within the period of warranty adopted unfair trade practice and hence he is liable to be compensate by the O.P. 
3.            The complaint was contested by the O.P. firm by filing written objection stating, interalia, that from the statement of the complainant it was evident that the shoes were found to be defective after 45 days of use. As per terms of warranty, if a product is found with manufacturing defect can be replaced with a new one only before use. Repair can be done if defect is found after use within 60 days. So, as per terms of warranty, the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the shoes with new one. However, as a good will gesture, they are ready to replace the shoes purchased by the complainant with new one. It is denied by the O.P. that they were deficient in rendering service to the complainant in any manner whatsoever.
4.            In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited cash memo dated 24.09.14 as Exhibit – 1.
5.            On the other hand, one Sri Monoj Kothari, one of the partners of the O.P. firm, has examined himself as O.P.W. 1. No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the O.P.

        FINDINGS:
6.            The point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.P. firm was deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
7.            We have already heard argument advanced by the complainant. And also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously.
8.            It is the case of the complainant that within 45 days of purchase of the shoes it was found to be defective and as per terms of warranty the O.P. is liable to replace the defective shoes with new one.
9.            The O.P. controverted the abovesaid assertion of the complainant saying that he never approached them for replacement of the alleged defective shoes. According to the O.P., the product is replaceable only before use. Since the defect of the product was detected  after 45 days of use, the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the same with new one. However, as a good will gesture, they expressed their willingness to replace the shoes purchased by the complainant with  new one. The terms and conditions laid down in the cash memo does not appear to us to be  reasonable as they are not customers friendly. We are at a  loss to understand how a consumer can guess on whether a particular product is defective unless it is put to use. Any way, since the O.P. expressed its willingness to replace the shoes purchased by the complainant vide Bill No- 08494 dated 24.09.14  with new one, we do not like to go into the details of the matter. In our considered opinion, it will meet the ends of justice if the O.P. is directed to replace the defective shoes to the complainant with new one of the same model.
10.            In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed. The O.P. firm is directed to replace the defective shoes to the complainant with a new one of the same model or refund the price of the same  with   Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand) as cost of litigation within one month from today, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the case till the payment is made in full. 
           
11.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.