The complainant's case is as follows:

The complainant purchased a leather chappal from the opposite party on 24.3.2008. After one month from the date of purchase the sole of the chappal got detached from the upper leather part and it became usless. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested to replace the chappal but the opposite party harassed her. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying for a direction to the opposite party to replace the damaged chappal with a new one and to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of proceedings.

-2-

The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.

1. the complainant purchased two sets of chappal on

   24.03.08 after careful examination and after trial walking on the floor premises of the shop.

2. As the complainant was satisfied with the quality and price, she purchased two units for a gross value of Rs.998/- and by bargaining she obtained Rs.108/- as discount.

Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

Points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

2. Reliefs and costs.

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by petitioner and opposite party and exhibit A1, exhibit B1 documents and M.O.1.

Point No.1.

The complainant averred that she requested the opposite party to replace the chappal but the opposite party harassed her before the public and caused mental agony to her. Where as the opposite party averred that the complainant has not made any complaint either orally or in writing and that the allegations made by the complainant are false. The opposite party alleged that the damage caused to the chappal is only due to its careless use by the complainant and by her physical action for the purpose of the

-3-

complaint. But the complainant denied the above said allegation and averred that she sparingly used the said chappal.

Submission advanced by the counsel of opposite party is that he is only a dealer and liability for refund of price or replacement of the chappal is that of manufacturer who is not impleaded as a party in the complaint. The invoice provided by Saritha Sales dtd. 12.2.2008 is produced and marked as exhibit B1. There is nothing in exhibit B1 to prove that the alleged footwear by name 'Pulse' was manufactured by the Saritha Sales. Moreover the complainant did not have any privity of contract with the manufacturer of the chappal and therefore, joinder of manufacturer as a party in the complaint is not all necessary.

The complainant purchased two chappals for a gross value of Rs.998/- vide bill dated 24.3.08. The said bill is produced and marked as Exhibit A1. As per exhibit A1 one chappal is priced at Rs.499/-. Rs.499/- is a bit pricey as far as ladies footwear is concerned. Since the said footwear was brought for such a high price it is expected to last for a long time. But in this instant case the alleged footwear lasted only for five months.

In order to inculcate high stanards of quality, purity or potency of the article or the goods sold to the consumer, the legislature has prescribed the definition of word defect' by S. 2(1) (f) of the Consumer Protection Act. As per the said definition, the trader and the manufacturer has to sell the goods, free from any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality and standard, After purchasing a new article, if the consumer is required to approach the trader or manufacturer time and again for removing one or the other defect, then the trader or manufacturer cannot escape from the liability of compensating the consumer. No consumer in ordinary and normal course take up the matter with

-4-

manufacturer or seller so vigorously. Considering the above mentioned circumstances we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2.

In view of the findings in point No.1, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.

After deducting the cash discount of Rs.108/- from the gross value the complainant paid Rs.890/- for the footwears. That means one foot wear was priced at Rs.445/-. Hence in our view a direction to refund Rs.445/- to the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

In the result, it is ordered as follows: The opposite party is ordered to refund Rs.445/- to the complainant. Before receiving the refund money the complainant shall deposit the defective chappal with the opposite party. The opposite party is also ordered to pay Rs.250/- as compensation and Rs.250/- as cost of the proceedings.

This order will be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order.

The complaint is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.