Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 105
Instituted on : 13.02.2020.
Decided on : 26.04.2022.
Ravi Nehra s/o Sh. Jaivir Singh R/o H.No.123A/14 Kripal Nagar, Near Saini College Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- PUMA Sports India Private Limited Regd. Office: No.509, CMH Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560038 through its Manager.
- PUMA Sports India Private Limited 1445/26, Opp. Bajrang Bhawan Mandir Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001 Haryana through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Raman Nehra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Shubham Manchanda Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a jacket alonwith two other items with bill bearing receipt no.12934 from the authorized showroom of the respondents on 02.11.2019 and at the time of purchase the sales associates of the respondents told the complainant that you will get a 3 months warranty. Unfortunately the collar of the jacket purchased by the complainant got damaged badly after a month. Complainant visited the authorized showroom of the respondents and they assured the complainant that it will be replaced within a week. But when the complainant again visited the showroom, the sales associates refused to replace it. Complainant requested the respondents via mail and through toll free number to replace the jacket but despite his repeated requests and reminders, respondents did not pay any heed towards the request of complainant. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 23.01.2020 via email to the respondents but to no effect. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.4999/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2 . After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and field their written reply submitting therein that the complainant has purchased the product after being satisfied about its quality and the company gives a 3 months warranty for the manufacturing defects in product, if any. Further the damage of collar of the jacket in question is purely because of the reason of mishandling and inadequate washing of the product. When the complainant visited the respondents in the month of March 2020, he was told that the jacket has been damaged because of the use of harsh chemicals and there was no manufacturing defect in the product. Hence the same could not be replaced. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 24.08.2021. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A and closed his evidence on dated 21.04.2022. In the statement dated 21.04.2022, ld. counsel for the opposite party has also received the jacket from the complainant’s counsel.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the collar of the jacket purchased by the complainant got damaged badly after a month. To prove the same complainant has placed on record photographs Ex.C4, which shows that it looks like a cloth which becomes worn out for keeping it for a long time. A brand new jacket after 2-3 washings does not look like worn out as shown in the photographs Ex.C4. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the same was in warranty period. Complainant also sent a legal notice Ex.C2 through his counsel via email but the jacket in question was not replaced by the opposite parties despite the fact that the same was in warranty period. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the price of jacket i.e. 4999/- say Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.02.2020 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. The jacket in question is already handed over by ld. counsel for the complainant to ld. counsel for the opposite parties before this Commission on dated 21.04.2022.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.04.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member.
