Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

Date of Order :  12.06.2015

                    Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To refund the full price of the trouser i.e. Rs. 525/- ( Five Hundred Twenty Five only ) with interest @ 18% per annum from 30.01.2009 till full and final payment of the amount.
2. To pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Five Thousand only ) as compensation.
3. To pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Ten Thousand only ) as litigation cost.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant is housewife and no any independent source of income and is economically dependent upon her husband and does not know/ understand the English language and only conversant with Hindi language.
2. The complainant purchased a free look branded trouser/ full pant on 26.01.2009 from the franchisee M/s Teens Apparel, shop no. 117, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Patna for her husband. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
3. A reasonable, sufficient and adequate notice was not given to the complainant of return policy which was written in English Language on the backside of the retail invoice nor a clear, fair and reasonable effort was made by the staff/employee of opposite party no. 1 to bring the attention of the complainant on the said return policy at the time of purchasing the said trouser and also not after issuing the said retail invoice.
4. The complainant found that the colour of the said trouser faded, so she immediately lodged the complaint with said franchisee on 30.01.2009 and requested to replace it with another piece of same description but it was not replaced on the pretext that same description of the trouser had not been available in store and she was asked to come after one week because within one week the same type of garment to be arranged.
5. In pursuance of such direction, the complainant approached the said franchisee on 07.02.2009 and requested to replace the same garment with another piece of the same description. But he totally ignored the request made by the complainant and told her that the manufacturer is alone answerable for same. So, it is more appropriate to lodge the complaint with manufacturing company situated at New Delhi.
6. The complainant sent the letter dated 10.02.2009 to Polki Garments Pvt. Ltd. F – 28/5, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi with request to refund the price of the said garment or to replace the same garment with same description but till date neither any action/ step has been taken in this regard nor any reply to said letter has been received. ( Vide Annexure – 2 )
7. It is relevant to mention that there is implied warranty on the said trouser is that such good is reasonably fit for ordinary use for which such good is sold in the market. Here the breach of such warranty is committed by the opposite parties.
8. The complainant called upon the opposite parties through her advocate’s letter dated 18.01.2010 and requested them to refund the full price of same garment to replace it with another piece of same description but the opposite parties failed to comply with and even he did not reply the complainant’s said letter. ( Vide Annexure – 3 )
9. In susairaj case, the complainant purchased silk saree. Its colour faded. There was held to be a defect in the same and the opposite party was directed to refund the price of the saree of the complainant.
10. Even after making request, no any opportunity was afforded to the complainant to examine the said trouser at the time of purchasing it.

Perused the documents placed on record and heard the complainant only.

Despite notice being served the opposite parties neither appeared nor filed any written statements or participated in the hearing to deny the allegations of the complainant. Thus we are left with no alternative then to accept the version of the complainant made in the complaint petition duly supported by an affidavit from which it appears that it comes within the purview of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

Accordingly we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the old trouser of same brand within a period of two months of receipt of this order provided complainant returns the old trouser and in case the same is not replaced within the above stipulated period the opposite parties will have to refund the price of the trouser with interest @ 9%per annum and this interest will be paid till final is made.

The aforesaid opposite parties are further directed to Pay Rs. 2,000/- ( Rupees Two Thousand only ) as composite charges for compensation and litigation costs.

Thus the instant complaint petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                        Member                                                         President