BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.35 of 2015

Date of Institution: 09-01-2015

Date of Decision: 10-06-2015

Shri Vishal Sharma son of Sh.Charanjeet Sharma, resident of Paris Town, Batala Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

M/s.Amm Zone, through its Partner/ Proprietor, carrying on business at Shop No.4, First Floor, Celebration Mall, Batala Road, Amritsar.  

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. H.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. Inderjit Lakhra, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Vishal Sharma  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased a jacket make Oceanic from Opposite Party vide bill No. 1678 dated 11.2.2014 for a sum of Rs.2500/- and at the time of purchasing the said jacket, the Opposite Party assured the complainant that the said product of  oceanic is good and  reliable product and shall be used by the complainant for a long time and was further  assured by the Opposite Party that if, the said product gets torn within a period of one year, in that case Opposite Party shall replace the same with new one. Complainant alleges that he hardly  used the said jacket twice or thrice in the year 2014 and now in the month of December, 2014 when the complainant wore the said jacket, he found that the outer material of the said jacket has been torn from many places. The clothing material of the jacket has been torn from many places of the collar of the jacket and so many wrinkles have been developed in the said jacket and it has been spoiled from many places. Said jacket, sold by the Opposite Party, could not be proved to be good product as assured by the Opposite Party. The said jacket has become virtually useless. The complainant approached the Opposite Party many a times and requested to change the said jacket with new one, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the jacket of Oceanic with new one or in alternative Rs.2500/- be ordered to be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.    Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the jacket in question was sold in February 2014, whereas the complaint is filed in January 2015 i.e. after about one year of sale which means that complainant is using the said jacket for the last about one year.  Further, the jacket in question was sold by the Opposite Party to the complainant under the condition ‘ as is where is’ and at the time of its sale, it was made  clear to the complainant/ buyer that this jacket should be dry cleaned from some reputed dry cleaner only, but the complainant did not adhere to such condition. Even otherwise, in the bill issued  to the complainant for the said jacket, there is no guarantee or warrantee mentioned in it. As such, the Opposite Party can not be held liable for any kind of defect, if any, occurred in the jacket.     While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence, affidavit of Sh.Amrik Singh, proprietor Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased  jacket make Oceanic from Opposite Party vide bill No. 1678 dated 11.2.2014 (Ex.C3) for a sum of Rs.2500/-  in sale with 50% discount. Complainant  alleges that he hardly used the said jacket 2-3 times in winter season in early 2014 and in the month of December, 2014  when the complainant wore the said jacket in winter season, he found that  the outer material of the said jacket has been torn from many places. The clothing material of the jacket was also torn. There were so many wrinkles  developed in the said jacket. The complainant approached the Opposite Party  and requested to replace  the said jacket with new one, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the jacket in question was sold by the Opposite Party to the complainant in sale under the  condition ‘ as is where is’ and at the time of its sale, it was made  clear to the complainant/ buyer that the jacket should be dry cleaned from dry cleaner only, but the complainant did not adhere to such condition. Moreover, there is no guarantee or warrantee for the product in question. The complainant used the jacket for 11 months as he purchased the  jacket in question in February 2014 and filed the present complaint in January 2015 i.e. after about 11 months of its purchase. Jacket in question was purchased by the complainant in sale without any guarantee or warrantee. As such, the Opposite Party is not liable to refund the amount of the jacket to the complainant or to change the said jacket after a period of about one year. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased the jacket in question vide bill dated 11.2.2014 Ex.C3 by making payment vide receipt Ex.C2, from the  Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.2500/- in “sale”. The invoice of this jacket produced by the complainant himself Ex.C3 fully proves that the complainant purchased this jacket in “sale” with 50% discount i.e. at throw away price without any guarantee or warrantee. The complainant purchased this jacket on 11.2.2014 for a sum of Rs.2500/- against the actual price  of the jacket in question Rs.4995/-. He kept the jacket with him for about one year and filed the present complaint on 9.1.2015. The complainant could not produce any guarantee or warrantee regarding the product in question. He purchased the product from the Opposite Party in “sale”  under the  condition ‘ as is where is’. As such, the Opposite Party is not liable to  change the same with new one or to refund the amount of the product, if the same has become defective.
9. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
10. Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 10-06-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member