Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/878/2019

Sanjeev Kumar Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahul Vira (CEO), Skechers Retailed India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Khatri Adv. & Abhishek Kaushik Adv.

08 Jun 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	878 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	02.09.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	08.06.2021

 

 

 

 

Sanjeev Kumar Rana s/o Late Sh.Subhash Chand Rana, R/o H.No.226, Tribune Colony, Baltana, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar (Mohali)

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Rahul Vira (CEO), Sketchers Retailed India Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Floor, B Wing, Fulcurm Building, Sahar road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400099

2]  Sketchers (Through its Proprietor/Partner), Shop No.108, Plot No.178, Elante Mall, Phase II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER 

                   SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                                               

 

 

Argued by :-  Sh.Vishal Khatri, Adv. for the complainant.

                 Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for OPs

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased one pair of shoes make Skechers worth Rs.5999/- in April, 2019 from OP No.2 having one year warranty about any defect.  However, the said pair of shoes torn just within 10-15 days and when the same was taken to OP No.2, its salesman told that since new pair of shoes of same company is not available, so he can try another company shoes.  It is stated that the complainant on the assurance of salesman of OP No.2, purchased another pair of shoes for an amount of Rs.7999/-. It is also stated that even the new pair of shoes purchased by the complainant were not comfortable and causing severe pain to him as and whenever he wore them.  The complainant immediately raised this issue with OP No.2 on 28.5.2019 as well as through email on 30.5.2019.  Ultimately, the complainant returned that shoes too to OP No.2 on 19.6.2019 against receipt Ann.C-2 and the salesman of OP No.2 assured him of getting new pair within short time.  However, after about 1½ period, when complainant again visited OP No.2 to get the shoes or refund, but the same was flatly refused by it. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant has not lead any expert opinion to prove alleged manufacturing defect in the product in question.  It is stated that after first purchase of shoes, the complainant approached within 15 days for exchange and the same being in unused condition were exchanged vide exchange invoice dated 7.5.2019.  It is also stated that even the said earlier shoes got exchanged with another model, on the free will & wish of complainant and it is denied that the same were exchange with another model due to unavailability of shoes of that company.  It is pleaded that after the exchange of earlier shoes, the complainant again approached answering OPs on 28.5.2019 via email regarding issue with exchanged shoes and when the complainant brought the shoes, the same were checked and found to be having no manufacturing defect. It is also pleaded that the complainant was told that the shoes cannot be exchanged or replaced as per the exchange and warranty terms being beyond the exchange period of 15 days of purchase as well as in used condition.  It is stated that the pair of shoe of complainant are in used condition and there is no manufacturing defect found, so no question of replacement or exchange arises, so there is no deficiency on the part of OPs. Denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

6]       The thorough perusal of documents placed on record, clearly shows that the Opposite Parties have failed to render proper services as per their promises, which inspired, induced & enticed the complainants to purchase their product. It is opined that the complainant has spent his hard-earned money to have some good product/shoes for himself. The act of the OPs by not replacing the product with new one with fresh warranty or to refund the cost thereof amounts to deficiency in service on their part. 

7]       In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties.  Accordingly, the complaint stands allowed with direction to OPs to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant which includes the cost of the products in question, compensation for harassment as well as litigation expenses.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of this order till realisation.

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced                                                             

8^th June, 2021                                                   sd/- 

                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER