Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/75/2013

Rajesh Singh S/o Sunder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Looks Showroom - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Jaiswal

10 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

            Complaint No.75 of 2013.

Date of Instt. 30.01.2013.

Date of Decision:10.07.2015.

 

Rajesh Singh S/o Sh Sunder Singh R/o House No.17,Rajiv Garden Kansapur Yamuna Nagar

                                                                                                                             ..Complainant

               Versus

 

Proprietor Looks Showroom, 149 –A, Collage Road near Jain Mandir Chhtti Line Yamuna Nagar

                                          ..Opposite Party

 

Before:        SH ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER

         

Present:       Sh Atul Jaiswal Advocate for Complainant

                   OP Already ex-parte.

ORDER   

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased Three Shirts, One Jeans, One Ladies Cardigan & One Cap totaling worth Rs 6538.40 Paise vide Bill no.1235471688 Dt.10-11-2012 from shop of Opposite Party. At the time of delivery of Clothes the respondent had assured to the complainant that clothes are of good quality and standard and on his assurance the complainant had purchased the said clothes. On the next day of purchase the complainant felt astonished when he opened the packing of One Shirt which was of Rs.1259.10 because the said shirt was torn i.e. defective from the middle near front Buttons. At the time of Shopping, the Opposite Party had assured that in case the buyer is not satisfied with the clothes then he can replace the same. Since the said Shirt was defective, therefore, the complainant approached the respondent/ opposite party but the OP flatly refused to replace the same. Legal notice dated 17-12-2014 was served but the same was neither replied nor the shirt in question was replaced, which clearly shows that Opposite party have indulged in unfair trade practice and by refusing to replace the same is liable for deficient of the service towards the complainant. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CX and documents Annxure.C1 photocopy of bill, Annexure C2 Copy of Legal Notice.

3.                          On notice, respondent/OP appeared and filed written statement only taking some preliminary objections such as Complaint is false, bad for non joinder of necessary party and has no locus standi and on merit it has been mentioned that complainant had purchased the clothes after satisfying himself with regard to the quality and standard of the clothes which were in the packing of manufacturing company. It has been further mentioned that complainant was told that clothes bears no guarantee as the same are manufactured under standard norms and are packed after duly checkup by the Mfg Company. Lastly, it has been mentioned that though there was no defect in the shirt in question yet the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the alleged Shirt as a party to this complaint.

4.       However, during the proceeding of this compliant the OP remained absent from this Forum, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21-08-2014. 

5.       Admittedly, the complainant had purchased clothes including the Shirt in question from opposite party.  The grievance of the complainant is that one shirt which was of Rs 1259.10 paisa was defective i.e. torn from middle near front buttons and in support of this argument, the complainant has drawn our attention towards newly defective/Torn from near front middle button shirt which he brought in the Forum and We noticed that the shirt was defective as it was torn from near front middle button.  Since the Opposite party is exparte, therefore, this Forum has been left with no other option except to believe the contention of the complainant which is duly supported by his affidavit Annexure CX.  The grievance of the complainant is that the OP has not replaced the product forcing him to knock at the door of this Forum and to substantiate his contention the complainant has filed his affidavit as well as copy of bill Annexure C1.  It is worthwhile to mention here that the responsibilities of the shopkeeper/companies cannot be over after selling of the product as it is the bounden duty of the shopkeeper/companies to satisfy their customers because any consumer when buys a new product remains under the impression that the same is bound to be mechanically perfect being a new product and it would be defect free.  If the product is defective a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. Though the burden to prove the defect is on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint the precise nature of defects or its cause or source.  Such like behaviour and practice is not expected from a shopkeeper/company who is selling its product. In other words, we can say that this act and conduct of the company/shopkeeper falls under unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as defined in Sections 2 (f) and 2 (g) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in case it sells or sends the defective product to their customers even after charging full amount of the product. The customer is not expected to visit time and again to the shop or company due to defect/manufacturing defect in the product because he had invested in the new product to buy peace of mind hoping that the same is dependable and trouble free. Further the contention of the opposite party that Manufacturing Company has not been impleaded is not tenable as neither its name is mentioned in the bill nor the Op has disclosed the name and particulars of manufacturing company in his reply.

5.                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the complainant has been deprived of using the shirt in question the ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to replace of shirt in question with a new one of same company, price and  quality  or refund the cost of the shirt i.e. Rs.1259.10/- within a period of  30 days from the date of this order subject to deposit/return of the defective shirt failing which complainant will be entitled to recover the amount with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of default  i.e. after 30days from date of order till actual realization and further OP is directed to pay Rs.1000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and  litigation expenses etc.  It is ordered accordingly.  Order of this Forum be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 10.07.2015

                                                                   ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                            

                                                                      ( S.C. SHARMA )

                                                                        MEMBER