Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/649

Sunil Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shopperi Shop Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

compl.In.Person

15 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No: 649 of 17.09.2014

                                                                   Date of Decision: 15.04.2015

                    

Sunil Kapoor s/o Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor, resident of Block 1, House No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

.…Complainant

Versus 

1. M/s Shoppers’ Stop Limited, Pavillion Mall, Old Session Court Road, Near Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana-141001, through its Customer Care Associate & Unit Head.

2. M/s M & B Footwear (P) Limited, 79, EPIP Phase 1, Jharmajhari, Baddi (H.P)- 173205, through the Concerned.

3. M/s M & B Footwear (P) Limited, C-33, Sector 58, Noida (U.P.)- 201301, through the Concerned.

…..Opposite parties 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:     Sh.Sunil Kapoor, complainant in person.

                   Sh.Nitin Gulati, Advocate for OPs.                   

 

 

ORDER

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Sunil Kapoor s/o Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor, resident of Block 1, House No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against M/s Shoppers’ Stop Limited, Pavillion Mall, Old Session Court Road, Near Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Customer Care Associate & Unit Head and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to exchange the defective shoes with the new flawless ones or to refund Rs.2499/- alongwith interest accrued thereon @ 18% p.a. w.e.f 11.8.14 till its realization, to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.50,000/- for Consumer Welfare Fund to the complainant alongwith any other relief to the complainant as the Forum deems fit.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased a pair of shoes of Lee Cooper, a global brand, having article no.LC9253 colour Black, size 41/25.7cm, item code # 7655531 for an amount of Rs.2499/-, vide cash memo no.1916 dated 11.8.14 from OP1. The said pair of shoes is having manufacturing defect and the OP1 and one of its fellow shoes bears needle holes on the upper leather portion which looks awkward. The complainant visited OP1 alongwith said pair of defective shoes vide Merchandise Exchange Pass bearing no.8785 and on 13.8.14 i.e. the very next day of its purchase concerned officials has refused to exchange the said article with the lame excuse that stock under said article was not available with them at that time. Complainant made numerous visits to the OP1 for the said purpose, but with no effect. Complainant also contacted the National Consumer Helpline under registration no. 536004, who has advised him to send a mail to OP2 and OP3 qua the matter for doing the needful on their part. Thereafter in the first week of September, 2014 the complainant was constrained to make an email to OP2 and OP3 requesting them either to exchange the defective product in question to him with the new flawless one or refund the amount of the product alongwith reasonable interest accrued thereof. Thereafter on 13.9.14, the complainant again visited OP1 in response to request made by one of their officials alongwith Merchandise Exchange Pass no.8813 dated 13.9.14 in regard with the exchange of defected shoes in question, but OP1 again failed to exchange the said defective pair of shoes with the new one. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is gross abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; the complainant has not alleged any specific allegation against the answering OP and has filed the complaint on the basis of vague, evasive and false allegations; the complainant had concealed the material and necessary information from this Forum. The shoes purchased by the complainant were selected by the complainant himself after having a close look over the pair of shoes taking sufficient time and checking the same while wearing and walking too. Further submitted that the said pair of shoes did not look awkward on the date of purchase. On 13.8.14 i.e. after two days, the complainant visited the showroom of OP1 for exchanging the pair with another pair of another model for which the security guard issued an exchange pass but when the employee at Customer service desk of OP1 checked the condition of the shoes, he came to know by seeing the pair that the shoes has been worn and used and conveyed to the complainant that it cannot be exchanged with another. The complainant flared up and insisted the employees to change the pair, but the employees showed their incapacity to exchange the used shoes and replied that if the said pair had not been used, any customer can exchange the pair within 14 days of the purchase. However, the complainant gave threats and filthy abuses. It is pertinent to mention here that on 13.9.14 someone visited the showroom of OP1 on behalf of the complainant with bill and box of shoes to exchange it. A pass was issued to him by the security guard but again the demand to exchange was subsequently refused by the employee at customer service desk of OP1 due to the same reason mentioned above as the shoes were used and worn. No cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant and against the answering OPs to file the present complaint. On merits denying the contents of all other paras, Ops prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Complainant has adduced evidence by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and affidavit of Sh.Shubham Kapoor aged 20 years s/o Sh.Sunil Kapoor s/o Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor, resident of Block-1, H.No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana Ex.CB and also attached documents Ex.C1 to C18. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Ops has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Prashant Mehta, Vice President Legal and Company Secretary, Authorized Signatory of OP1 M/s Shoppers Stop Ltd Ex.RA and affidavit of Sh.Sunil Kumar, Authorized Signatory of OP2 and OP3 M/s M&B Footwear (P) Ltd. Ex.RB, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement.

5.                Case was fixed for arguments. Complainant has filed written arguments, whereby submitted that the defected shoes in question have been put on sale in ‘Fresh Arrivals’ section of showroom of OP1 in connivance with other OPs to its prospective customers including the complainant and his witness on the date of its purchase has not been controverted and denied by the Ops while filing of their written statement and affidavits in evidence. Further submitted that complainant has visited on 13.8.14 to OP1 alongwith the shoes. Due to unavailability of stock of shoes under the same articles, the complainant was told to come in a day or two after he was intimated. Thereafter the complainant himself (not anybody else as alleged by the OPs) visited again on 13.9.14 alongwith the shoes in question in response to email Ex.C9 by OP1. Again Op1 has miserably failed to provide the said exchange due to non-availability of stock of shoes under the same article, therefore, it was again verbally assured that OP1 will arrange another fresh pair of shoes of the same article and model in a couple of days. The factum of manufacturing defect in one of the fellows (right side) of shoes Ex.C2, which bore ‘a long stream of needle holes on the upper leather portion’ has duly been admitted as correct by the OPs himself. Whereas, its other fellow Ex.C3 is defect less. Later on this fact have been admitted by the OPs on record by way of an email dated 15.9.14 Ex.C8 that they are arranging a new pair of shoes of the same article. Though, it was only a lip-service by the OPs. Moreover the OPs have neither refuted the said allegation of complaint whenever he visited their showroom nor have denied the same in their various mails which are duly exhibited and are on record. Further the Ops have failed to justify the sale of the defective product to the complainant. Further the Ops time and again have ignored the deponent’s mails/requests and numerous visits, the Ops have neither exchange the defective product nor have refunded its sale consideration till date. Moreover OP2 has manufactured the said product and OP3 has marked the said defective product. This fact is very much in their knowledge and has been proved by the complainant.

6.                Ld. Counsel for the Ops filed written arguments, whereby reiterating the same facts as mentioned in the written statement submitted that the complainant had failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the pair of shoes. The Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 does not even shows any manufacturing defect too. Moreover the complainant could not even point out any defect in the pair while the shoes were brought before the Forum. The complainant had tendered his evidence in shape of affidavit Ex.CW1 and in the entire evidence of the complainant, he did not point out or alleged any negligence, deficiency in services or unfair trade practices. Even no relief is sought or prayed by the complainant in this entire evidence. Further submitted that the said pair of shoes did not look awkward on the date of purchase. On 13.8.14 i.e. after two days, the complainant visited the showroom of OP1 for exchanging the pair with another shoe pair of another model for which the security guard issued an exchange pass but when the employee at Customer service desk of OP1 checked the condition of the shoes, he came to know by seeing the pair that the shoes has been worn and used and conveyed to the complainant that it cannot be exchanged with another. The complainant flared up and insisted the employees to change the pair, but the employees showed their incapacity to exchange the used shoes and replied that if the said pair had not been used, any customer can exchange the pair within 14 days of the purchase. However, the complainant gave threats and filthy abuses.

7.                We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as defence taken by the OPs and gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties and the entire record placed on file.

8.                It is evident that complainant had purchased a pair of shoes of Lee Cooper, a global brand colour Black, size 41/25.7cm, for an amount of Rs.2499/-, vide cash memo no.1916 dated 11.8.14 from OP1 and one of its fellow shoes bears needle holes on the upper leather portion which looked awkward. The complainant visited OP1 alongwith said pair of defective shoes in the very next day of its purchase, but the concerned officials has refused to exchange the said article. Complainant made numerous visits to the OP1 for the said purpose, but with no results. Thereafter complainant time and again visited OP1 with a request to exchange of defected shoes in question, but OPs failed to exchange the said defective pair of shoes with the new one. For not repairing the shoes of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.                Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to repair the sole of the shoes without any cost, if the same found un-repairable, the Ops are directed to replace the shoes of the complainant with new ones of the same make and model or in the alternate to refund the amount of the shoes to the complainant. Keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances no order as to cost and compensation is passed. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                             (S.P.Garg)                                         (R.L.Ahuja)

                              Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:15.04.2015 

Hardeep Singh