This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.10, 000/- as compensation and Rs.850/- as the price of the shoe.<br /> <br /> The facts of the case are as follows:-<br /> The complainant purchased a shoe, socks and a chapel from the opposite party for Rs.1000/-.He was used the shoe on the same day and at late evening he has suffered pain and itching sensation from the blisters appeared. Complainant tried to get another shoe on the same night but the shop was closed. He went to the shop next day on11.3.2007.But being Sunday it was closed. He went again on 12.3.2007 and the opposite party told the complainant that there was no stock and asked him to keep the shoe there to replace it immediately after getting the new stock. So the complainant entrusted the shoe in the shop of the opposite party. When he went again after one week the opposite party told him that there will be stock during vishu season and the same will be replaced at that time. Complainant again went to the shop 2 days before Vishu. At that day opposite party behaved rudely and told him that there was no stock and not to visit his shop afterwards. Complainant was very much disappointed and insulted. When complainant asked for the bill the opposite party issued an order form only. Complainant has no other way except approach this Forum.<br /> <br /> After accepting the notice from the Forum opposite party appeared and submitted before the open forum that he was trying for settlement and asked time either to settle the matter or else to file the version. The matter was adjourned to another day and on that day the opposite party repeated the same prayer and adjourned the matter to another day. But the very next posting date when the case was called the complainant only was present and opposite party called absent and setexparte.<br /> <br /> The main question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.<br /> The evidence consists of the oral evidence by PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2,<br /> The complainant deposed in his evidence that he was purchased a shoe for Rs.850/-, socks for Rs.40/- and slipper for Rs.110/- from the shop of the opposite party. Ext.A1 and A2 proves purchase of all these 3 items and its price. Ext.A1 carries the endorsement’ returned’ proves that the shoe has been returned to opposite party and it is now with opposite party. Complainant further says that he has gone to the shop of opposite party many times and all the time except the last occasion opposite party expressed his willingness to replace the shoe. But on the last occasion he behaved rudely and asked him not to visit the shop again with this demand. There is no reason to disbelieve the PW1.Thus the act of the opposite party can only be considered as an unfair trade practice and he is liable to refund the price of the shoe Rs.850/- to the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the opposite party has to pay Rs.850/- as the cost of the shoe and Rs.300/- as the cost of this proceedings.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to pay Rs.850/- as the price of the shoe and Rs.300/- as the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the consumer protection Act,<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1 & A2.Order Dt.10.3.07 and 12.3.07..<br /> .Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1.Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil<br /> / Forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.<br />