DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1140/2016
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MOHD. SALEEM,
S/o SH. NOOR MOHAMMED,
R/o H. No.-313/84, TULSI NAGAR,
INDER LOK, DELHI-110035. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. NOVELTY SHOES,
THROUGH ITS PROP./MANAGER,
1979, TOTA RAM BAZAR,
TRI NAGAR, DELHI-110035.
2. LIBERTY SHOES,
THROUGH IS PROP./MANAGER,
HEAD OFFICE AT:- LIBERTY HOUSE,
LIBERTY ROAD, PO BOX No.103,
KERNAL, HARYANA-132001. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 03.11.2016
Date of decision: 19.03.2020
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a pair of shoes for his son namely Mohd. Nabeel from OP-1 vide cash memo no. 20027 book no.201, TIN No. 07610249766 on 12.04.2016 for a sum of Rs.810/- and the
CC No. 1140/2016 Page 1 of 7
said shoes were stated to be of “Liberty” i.e. OP-2 and at the time of selling the said shoes OP-1 assured the complainant that the shoes are of very good quality being product of reputed brand i.e. “Liberty”. The complainant further alleged that when the son of the complainant put on the said shoes, the sole of the said shoe started pilling off on the very same day which shows that the same were very bad/cheap quality shoes contrary to the assurance given by OP-1 and the complainant and his son faced great difficulty, inconvenience, mental agony and harassment despite spending the amount taken by OP-1. On 12.04.2016 at about 5:30 P.M., the complainant alongwith his son went to the shop of OP-1 and asked to exchange the shoes or refund the amount but OP-1 flatly refused to entertain the complainant and asked him to go out from the shop and when the complainant asked him that his son has to go to school tomorrow and without school shoes, he will not be able to go to school, OP-1 became annoyed and extended threat to the complainant to leave the shop immediately otherwise the complainant will has to face dire consequences. Thereafter, seeing no other option the complainant left the shop of OP-1 and purchased another pair of school shoes from nearby shop by investing further amount and OP-1 caused the complainant and his son great mental agony, humiliation, harassment and financial loss by not providing the service and quality of shoes as assured by him at the time of selling of the said shoes. The complainant further
CC No. 1140/2016 Page 2 of 7
alleged that on 12.04.2016 OP-1 misbehaved and committed other illegal activities with the complainant and harassed him physically as well as mentally, being aggrieved from the conduct of OP-1, the complainant lodged complaint against OP-1 to the SHO, PS Keshav Puram, Delhi vide DD No. 57-B dated 12.04.2016 but when no action has been taken then the complainant lodged complaint to DCP, North-West District, Ashok Vihar-I, Delhi vide D. No.3422 dated 19.04.2016 and copy of the same was also conveyed to the SHO and the police has already registered a NCR No. 0035/2016, u/s 506 IPC, PS Keshav Puram, Delhi dated 25.04.2016 against OP-1 and OP-1 is liable to be prosecuted under Criminal as well as Civil Law for the illegal acts because on one hand they have usurped the complainant’s money without giving the service as assured by them and on the other hand OP-1 misbehaved with the complainant and threatened him for dire consequences in presence of his minor son. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent legal notices to OPs on 19.04.2016 claiming therein to pay Rs.1,03,310/- but OPs failed despite the service of notices and hence the act of OPs is clearly unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.810/- towards the price of shoes taken by OP-1 as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing him mental pain, agony, damages and
CC No. 1140/2016 Page 3 of 7
harassment and has also sought Rs.2,500/- cost of litigation.
3. Only OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed its reply whereas OP-2 did not choose to contest the case despite service of notice sent through speed post which was delivered on 02.12.2016 and OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.01.2017.
4. OP-1 in its reply submitted that OP-1 sold a pair of shoes of “Liberty” brand to the complainant vide cash memo no.20027 book no. 201, TIN No. 07610249766 dated 12.04.2016 on a discounted price of Rs.810/- against the MRP Rs.899/-, however, on same day the complainant visited the shop of OP-1 and asked for the refund. OP-1 further submitted that OP-1 is owner of Novelty Shop since 1994 and selling the shoes of “Liberty” brand since then and “Liberty brand” belongs to Liberty Shoes Ltd. (LSL) which is a famous, reputed and old Indian Shoe Co., based in Karnal, Haryana since 1954. OP-1 further submitted that as per the warrantee policy, “if any shoe undergo wear and tear is brought to the notice then Novelty Shoes shall bear the repairing cost of the same and the complainant has not submitted technical report regarding defect of concerned shoes. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant asked for the refund of amount of Rs.810/- against the purchased shoes but OP-1 politely told the complainant that as per the sales policy “refund” is not admissible, however, the complainant may get the school shoes exchanged from any of the goods available at the shop of OP-1. OP-1 further submitted that
CC No. 1140/2016 Page 4 of 7
when the complainant left the shop of OP-1 and told OP-1 “that he very well known about claiming the refund in highly multiplied value of the actual refund amount and OP-1 offered the exchange offer to the complainant to which the complainant denied. OP-1 further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 and denied the contentions of OP-1.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of cash memo no. 20027/201 dated 12.04.2016 of Rs.810/- issued by OP-1, copies of complaints dated 12.04.2016 & 19.04.2016 lodged by the complainant to SHO, PS Keshav Puram, Delhi & the DCP, North-West District, Ashok Vihar-I, Delhi, copy of FIR no. 0035/2016 dated 25.04.2016 and copy of legal notice dated 19.04.2016 sent by the complainant through his Counsel to OP-1 & OP-2 by speed post alongwith postal receipts.
7. On the other hand, Proprietor of OP-1 has filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per line of defence taken by OP-1 in the reply. OP-1 has also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OP-1 in the light of evidence of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties. The case of the complainant has remained
CC No. 1140/2016 Page 5 of 7
consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. From the pleadings of the parties, documents and evidence it is proved that the complainant purchased the disputed product i.e. shoes of Rs.810/- on 12.04.2016 which was sold by OP-1 and the sole of the said shoes started pilling off on the same day immediately after its purchase and the complainant and his son went to the shop of OP-1 and asked to exchange the shoes or refund the amount but OP-1 refused to entertain the complainant. During the proceedings of the case before the Forum, the complainant has produced the disputed product which supports the case of the complainant. OP-1 has not disputed the said product. A customer is not expected to file a false complaint and the complainant accordingly was not expected to take his minor son to the shop of OP-1 on the same date of purchase of shoe unless the said shoe was not having any defect. OPs were expected at that time to have resolved the complaint/ problem of the complainant which OPs have failed to resolve. Accordingly, OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Accordingly, OPs are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OPs jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.810/- being the price of pair of Shoe on return of the disputed product & original bill.
CC No. 1140/2016 Page 6 of 7
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OPs jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OPs fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 19th day of March, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 1140/2016 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
