BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no. 310 of 2020      

                                                          Date of Institution: 02.12.2020

                                                          Date of Decision:   24.07.2023. 

Amrinder Singh, aged 16 years son of Shri Bhupender Singh Vinayak Advocate, resident of 175/7, MITC Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa through his father/ natural guardian Bhupender Singh Vinayak Advocate son of Shri Inder Singh.

                                                                   ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. PUMA Sports India Pvt. Ltd., Office no. 509, CMH Road, Indira Nagar, Bangalore- 560038 through its authorized signatory/ person.

2. Abhishek Ganguly, Managing Director of PUMA Sports India Pvt. Ltd., Office No. 509, CMH Road, Indira Nagar, Bangalore- 560038 through its authorized signatory/ person.

                  ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT

        SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER            

Present:         Sh. B.S. Vinayak, Advocate/ father of complainant for   complainant.

          Opposite parties already exparte.

ORDER

          The complainant being minor at the time of filing of present complaint has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that being allured and impressed by the brand and quality of product of ops the complainant placed the order of Footwear having its Article Code no. 36246308, size 10UK 29 CM against the market retail price of Rs.2999/-. That against the product, the ops provided warranty/ guarantee of three months against any kind of defect in the footwear. It is further averred that at the time of delivery, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2999/- but when the complainant opened the box, he found that the ops have issued the bill of Rs.2099/- whereas they charged amount of Rs.2999/- from him and just after 20 days of its purchase, the sole of the footwear was torn and same rendered as useless. It is further averred that complainant has also lodged the complaints with the ops on 05.11.2020 and also approached the op telephonically but with no result rather the ops refused to get redressed his grievance. That quality of the product is very much cheaper and it shows that product supplied by ops is not fresh one and same is second hand/ old one and ops have caused unnecessary harassment and financial loss to him. Hence, this complaint seeking refund of the amount of Rs.2999/- alongwith interest besides compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and also litigation expenses.

2.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops but ops no.1 and 2 have failed to appear despite notice sent through registered covers and as after stipulated period none appeared on their behalf, so both the ops no.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.

3.       In exparte evidence, father of complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and also tendered documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6.

4.       We have heard complainant through his father and have gone through the case file.

5.       The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished affidavit of his father as Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the contents of his complaint. It is proved from Ex.C2 that complainant placed the order of one pair of footwear to the ops for which the ops had to charge an amount of Rs.2999/- from the complainant on delivery of the product and accordingly on delivery of the product in question, the complainant paid amount of Rs.2999/- to the op. But when the box was opened, the bill of the amount of Rs.2099/- of the footwear was found in the box and just after 20 days of the purchase of footwear its sole was torn and it became defective but however the grievances of the complainant were not redressed by the op even after emails Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 sent to the ops. Even the ops have not bothered to appear before this Commission despite notices and opted to be proceeded against exparte and as such the pleadings and evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. So, it is proved on record that ops have caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant by charging amount of Rs.2999/- for the product of Rs.2099/- and thereafter by not redressing the genuine grievances of the complainant regarding defective footwear supplied to him.

6.       In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.2999/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 02.12.2020 till actual payment within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                             Member                      President,

Dated: 24.07.2023.                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                                              Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK