Sri Bhagirathi Pani,

S/o: Late Mayadhar Pani,

At:Shamaraipur, PO: Gelpur,

PS/Dist:Bhadrak

                                       ………………….Complainant

                   (Vrs.)

1.         Prop.Jagadamba Cloth Store,

            At: Salandi Bypass

            PO/PS: Bharak

            Dist:Bhadrak

2.         Manager, Legal Department,

            Kewal Kiran Clothing Ltd.,

            460/7, I.B.Patel Road,

            Gourgaon, Mumbai-400063

                                   …………………….Opp.Parties        

Order No.15 dt.01.07.2015:

            The case of the Complainant is that  on 16.01.2013 he had purchased one Leather Jacket(Killer Company) on payment of Rs.3,275/- from the shop of O.P.No.1. After use of 2 months, the Complainant found defect in the said Jacket and brought this fact to the notice of O.P.No.1. It is alleged by the Complainant that the O.P.No.1 replied evasively that he cannot do anything. Complainant again and again approached O.P.No.1 for settlement of the dispute. In the meanwhile, the said jacket damaged completely. Lastly, the Complainant asked the O.P.No.1 to replace the same by a low cost jacket but the O.P.No.1 did not listen anything. After that the Complainant met the O.P.No.1 accompanying two gentlemen. However, the O.P.No.1 assured to return the same in consultation with the manufacturing Company. Thereafter, Complainant met the O.P.No.1 on several occasion but in vain. So finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this case on 6.1.2015 praying for a direction to O.Ps to refund the cost of the jacket i.e. Rs.3,275/- along with compensation of Rs.1000/- and litigation cost.

            O.P.No.1 filed written version stating therein that the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. K-Lounge, the manufacturer of the jacket. The so-called  cash memo for the purchase of Jacket(Killer Company branded) on 16.01.2013 is out and out false, fabricated. The real fact of the case is that the O.P.No.1 is having name and fame in the town and the shop deals with variety type of clothes, jacket, fabrics in branded company like Killer, K-Lounge etc.. For smooth transaction of business, transparency and for benefit of consumer the shop has been computerized and shop provided the computerized cash memo with details bill no, time, date, item, size, qty., amount etc.. At the time of sale the O.P.No.1 also advised the customer for fabric care, use of good detergent and also it reflected in the instruction in the cash memo. But the Complainant manufactured, fabricated a forged cash memo by changing the date in cash memo to create a cause of action for filing this vexatious complaint and also to save the limitation. It transpires from the computerized billing system of O.P.’s shop the Complainant had purchased the item on 16.01.2012 bearing bill No.D-38, Code No.391651. The O.P.No.1 is the dealer of manufacturer and if the Complainant has any grievance against the defective item, it is between the Complainant and the manufacturer. There is no role of the present O.P..However, the Complainant neither field any report of Testing Laboratories listed by Department of Science & Technology nor expert opinion regarding the defective item. So the O.P.No.1 prayed for dismissal of the frivolous complainant with exemplary cost.

            On the petition of the Complainant, the O.P.No.2 was added as a party in this case as per order dt.6.4.2015.

            The O.P.No.2 filed written version on the self-same grounds as has been filed by O.P.No.1.

            On the date of hearing on 22.06.2015 the Advocate for O.Ps filed a petition praying to refer the defective jacket to appropriate Laboratory to find out whether such jacket suffers from any defect and to report its findings to the Forum. The said petition having no merit was rejected by the Forum and the case was heard from both sides.

            We perused the  Xerox copy of cash Memo No.D-38 dt.16.01.2013 at 08:40 PM filed by the Complainant and the cash memo No.D-38 dt.16.01.2012 at 12:10 PM filed by O.P.No.1. On perusal of the aforesaid cash memos, we find that the Complainant had purchased one item having code No.391651, item No.KJ-267 F/S BK, Size- XXL on payment of Rs.3,275/- after obtaining special discount of Rs.1349.70 paise out of Gross amount of Rs.4499/-. The Complainant has also paid VAT amounting to Rs.125.97 paise which includes in the net amount of Rs.3,275/- paid by Complainant. There is no dispute over the fact that the Complainant had purchased the jacket in question from O.P.No.1. O.Ps dispute the year of purchase of the alleged Jacket and its time mentioned in the Cash Memo No.D-38. According to O.Ps the Jacket in question was sold on 16.01.2012 at 12:10 PM and the Complainant in order to create a cause of action and to save the limitation has manufactured the cash memo. We do not find any force in the contention raised by the O.Ps. If it be held that the Complainant has manufactured the cash memo, why it cannot be held that the O.P.No.1 having instrument in generating cash memo cannot manufacture it for the sake of limitation? So we believe the version of Complainant that he had purchased Jacket (Killer Company) from the shop of O.P.No.1, manufactured by O.P.No.2 on payment of Rs.3,275/- and obtained cash memo No. D-38 dt.16.01.2013 at 08:40. Complainant’s allegation is that Jacket in question damaged within 2 months from the date of purchase and he requested the O.P.No.1 to replace the same by another Jacket which the O.P.No.1 declined. It is no doubt true that the O.P.No.1 deals with variety of clothes, jackets, fabrics in branded Company like Killer, K-Lounge etc.. Similarly, O.P.No.2 is a reputed Company and known by its customer for good quality. It is not the case of O.Ps that the Complainant has not approached for replacement of the jacket by a new one. On perusal of record, it is revealed that the Jacket in question damaged within 2 months of its purchase. We do not expect such type of complaint against the O.Ps having name and fame. So we are constrained to hold that the Jacket sold by O.P.No.1 is  a defective goods and O.Ps have adopted unfair trade practice by selling a old Jacket against cost of new one. Had the O.Ps replaced the Jacket by a new one the Complainant would not have filed the present complaint? So there is deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps. Accordingly, it is ordered:

                                                       O R D E R

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to refund the cost of Jacket i.e. Rs.3,275/-  along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order.