The Complainant has filed this case praying for a direction to O.P.No.1 either to replace the defective shoe by a new one or to repair the shoe with further warranty and to pay compensation. Further, the Complainant has prayed for a direction be given to O.P.No.2 to take action against O.P.No.1 as per Company terms for negligence of service.
The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased one full shoes “LAZARD” without lace and one pair of socks from O.P.No.1 on 26.12.13 for Rs.1,199/- and Rs.89/- respectively bearing Receipt No.710, Item Code No.476294/476, 60/220100/30004 and TIN No.21741510706. The warranty assured as per receipt and O.P.No.1 was for 90 days against pasting defect and sole cracks. According to Complainant after few days of using the shoe, pasting defect was noticed for which the Complainant approached O.P.No.1 and got the shoe repaired. Again few days after, the same defect was noticed for which the Complainant got it repaired from O.P.No.1. Few days after within the warranty period of 90 days again the same defect found in the shoe and the O.P.No.1 with great hesitation and annoyance kept the pair of shoes with him and finally returned the shoe on 24.03.2014 without repair. As such, the Complainant not only sustained financial loss but also sustained physical and mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1. Hence, this complaint.
O.P.No.1 in his written version stated that the Complainant had purchased one pair of full shoes from his shop on 26.12.2013. After using the shoe, the Complainant came to the shop of O.P.No.1 and stated that there was pasting defects in the shoe and demanded to replace the shoe but the O.P.No.1 stated that he cannot replace the same as per terms & conditions of the warranty. He can only repair the same. Accordingly, the O.P.No.1 repaired the shoe. It is false to say that O.P.No.1 on 24.03.2014 returned the shoe without repair and denied to render any service. The Complainant has filed this case only to defame the O.P.No.1 before his customers. Hence, the O.P.No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
O.P.No.2 has been set exparte vide order No.5 dt.05.06.2014.
During Course of hearing we perused the complaint petition, written version filed by the O.P.No.1 and Cash Memo No.710 dt.26.12.2013 of O.P.No.1. Having heard the Ld.Counsels appearing on both sides and upon perusal of document filed by Complainant, we are convinced that the Complainant had purchased one full shoes from the shop of O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.1199/- vide cash Memo No.710 dt.26.12.2013. It is also admitted by the O.P.No.1 in his written version that there was pasting defects in the shoe and it was repaired by the shop of O.P.No.1. During course of hearing it is brought to the notice of the Forum that the shop of O.P.No.1 is no more in existence. Whatever it may be, admittedly when there is pasting defect in the full shoe within a short period, that too within warranty period and according to Complainant the same was repaired twice and the defect could not be set right and lastly for the 3rd time the O.P.No.1 failed to render necessary service to the Complainant, we are convinced that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the pair of shoes and the same could not be rectified by the O.Ps. As such, the complaint bears merit. Accordingly, it is ordered.
O R D E R
In the result, the complaint is allowed on contest against O.P.No.1 and exparte against O.P.No.2. The O.Ps are directed to replace the pair of shoes in question to the Complainant by a new pair of shoes of the same model or refund its cost within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order. The O.Ps are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant within the aforesaid period of 30 days.
