THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.129/2017
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2019
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. : Member
ORDER
Present: Hon’ble Joseph Mathew, Member:
This petition is filed under Section12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Petitioner’s case is that, he had purchased a pair of footwear from the opposite party shop on 27/11/2016 for Rs.1,299/-. But within 15 days of use its straps broken and the product became useless. So he took the footwear to the opposite party and after convincing him its defects requested to replace the same with a new pair. But instead of replacing the product the opposite party abused him before the other customers there and returned him. The said act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice and this caused much mental agony, financial loss and other difficulties to him. The opposite party is bound either to replace the defective product or to refund its purchase price but the opposite party was not ready for any of his requests. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite party to refund the price of the defective footwear and to compensate him for his sufferings and also cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party received the notice issued from this Forum and was represented also. But he has not filed version or settled the matter as represented. Hence the opposite party set ex-parte.
The petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of his petition and produced the copy of purchase bill dated 27/11/2016 for Rs.1,299/- to prove his case and was marked as Ext. A1. The petitioner also brought the defective footwear before the Forum and on inspection, the allegation of the petitioner was found true.
The opposite party didn’t file version challenging the allegations of the petitioner or adduced any evidence rebutting the validity of the document Ext. A1 produced by the petitioner. Hence the case of the petitioner stands unchallenged and proved. So considering the facts stated and evidence on record and based on the inspection of the product, it is found that the footwear sold to the petitioner by the opposite party was defective. Any product sold for a consideration should serve its purpose at least for a minimum period. Here the petitioner could not use the footwear for a minimum period. So we are of the view that, the sale of the defective footwear to the petitioner for Rs.1,299/- is unfair trade practice and the indifferent attitude of the opposite party in replacing the same with a defect free new one amounts to deficiency in service on his part.
In the result, the following order is passed.
The opposite party is ordered to refund the purchase price of the footwear Rs.1,299/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred ninety nine only) to the petitioner along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation for his sufferings and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which, the whole amount will carry 10% interest per annum from the date of default till payment. The opposite party can take back the defective footwear on payment of the ordered amount if he wants so.
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2019
Date of filing: 05/04/2017
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of the bill
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
None
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
