D.O.F. 26.07.2011
D.O.O. 12.10.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011.
C.C.No.234/2011
P.C. Rasiya,
D/o. Hamza,
Oasis Apartment, : Complainant
Thavakkara, Kannur
(Rep. by Adv. M. Kishore Kumar)
Proprietor,
Silicon, Caltex Junction, : Opposite party
Kannur
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the price of the chappal ` 1450 to complainant together with ` 25000 as compensation and ` 5000 as cost of this litigation.
The case of the complainant is that she has purchased a chappal from opposite party on 09.07.2011 paying an amount of ` 1,450. But within two days it became useless because of the toe of the right chappal was teared out. On 11.07.2011 chappals were returned but opposite party carried out repair. Then it was taken back but on the same day it became again damaged as same as earlier. Immediately complainant reported directly to opposite party but the Manager insulted her in front of others and abused by saying complainant do not know how to use the chappal etc. He told her that they were not able to repair the same time to time and need not come again demanding to repair and thus sent her back. Hence this complaint.
The main question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party and complainant is entitled for the remedy. Ext.A1 proves that complainant purchased the Ladies chappal for an amount of ` 1450. Ext.A2 is the repairing slip dated 11.07.2011. Ext.A2 proves that the chappal purchased on 09.07.2011 by Ext.A1 has taken to opposite party one day after the purchase on 11.07.2011 for repair. Complainant adduced evidence that the same chappal become faulty again with the same complaint but when it was taken to opposite party the Manager insulted and sent back the complainant without conducting any repair. The complaint filed on 26.07.2011. The complainant is before the Forum with the default chappel for remedy. There is nothing to disbelieve the complainant. Ext.A1 , A2 and faulty chappal proves the case of complainant beyond doubt.
The opposite party was served properly and acknowledgement returned. But he did not make appearance before the Forum. The absence is purposeful knowingly well that he has nothing to defend the case. A costly chappal with of ` 1450 if became faulty within one day that is definitely a case of manufacturing defect. Once it was repaired but on the same day it became faulty again. This is a case of clear deficiency in service and complaint is entitled for the remedy. Hence we are of opinion that has to returned the price of the chappal ` 1450 taking back the same together with ` 500 as compensation and ` 500 as cost of the litigation. Hence order passed accordingly.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing opposite party to pay an amount of ` 1450 (One thousand four hundred and fifty only) as the price of the chappal taking back the same and also to pay a sum of ` 500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as compensation and ` 500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of this litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Bill dated 09.07.2011.
A2. Repairing card issued by OP.
Exhibits for the opposite party
nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for the opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
