BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint No.501 of 2019

                                                                   Date of Inst. 18.10.2019

                                                                   Date of Decision: 27.01.2020

Balwinder Singh # 601/19, Manvata Nagar, Hoshiarpur-146001, Punjab Mobile No.9729821176.

..........Complainant

Versus

PUMA Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd. SCO-18, Garha Road, Near Taj Sweets & Res. Choti Baradari, Jalandhar-144022, Punjab.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Sh. Karnail Singh                   (President)

 Smt. Jyotsna                 (Member)

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   OP exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant Balwinder Singh, wherein alleged that he is a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, he approached this Forum for the gross acts of the OP, wherein OP has committed serious deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

2.                Briefly the story propounded by the complainant is that he had purchased two T-Shirts and one pair of shoes of brand PUMA for personal use, vide OP bill receipt No.603 dated 25.09.2019 amounting to Rs.3118.82 including GST. That complainant was given assurance by the OP salesman of PUMA that shoes shall be fitted properly and same are of use for normal wear both indoor and outdoor. But the shoes did not fit due to improper size and moreover it was cricket shoes, which the salesman did not disclose the same thus misleading the complainant. That the shoes were unworn and complainant approached the OP to exchange/replace or refund of money, but same was denied, being reason No Return, No Exchange, which is against the law. The complainant also made a written request to OP, vide speed post dated 27.09.2019 to exchange/replace or refund of money else complainant left with no option, but to file the complaint with Consumer Protection Act, but to dismay the OP did not made any heed to the complainant request either to replace, exchange or refund the amount. The aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and accordingly, the instant complaint filed by the complainant with the prayer that the OPs be directed to refund the entire amount paid i.e. price of the shoes alongwith interest and be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and complainant be also entitled for the cost of litigation.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, but despite service OP did not bother to appear and ultimately, OP was proceeded against exparte.

4.                In order to prove his contention, the complainant brought on the file certain documents alongwith the pleadings i.e. his affidavit, invoice, letter sent to the OP and postal receipts.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                After hearing the argument, it reveals that the complainant himself alleged in the complaint that he purchased one pair of shoes and at the time of purchasing, the salesman of the OP gave an assurance that the shoes shall be fitted properly and the same are of use for normal wear both indoor and outdoor, but later on, he find that shoes did not fit due to improper size, moreover it was cricket shoes and accordingly, the complainant approached to the OP for refund of the price or replace the shoes, but OP did not ready to listen the request of the complainant despite giving a written notice and as such, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP and filed the instant complaint. We find that if any imperfection or defect in the product is hidden, then the OP can make liable for that, but when the defect or size as well as features of the product is open for each consumer to be analyzed, then the OP cannot make liable. Similar situation is in the present case, the complainant alleged that the salesman of the OP assured that the shoes shall be fitted properly, but the shoes are not fit due to improper size, this version of the complainant is not acceptable in the eyes of law, being reason whenever we purchased a shoe, we can check the size whether size of the same is appropriate for foot and obviously, these things must have been seen by the complainant at the time of purchase and later on, he cannot make a blame upon the OP that the size was not given proper rather it is only a pretend of the complainant to get return the price of the product, which he intentionally after analyzing its quality has been purchased. So, accordingly, we do not find any force in the argument put forth by the complainant in person, therefore, complaint is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

7.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                          Karnail Singh

27.01.2020                                        Member                         President