Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/336/2023

METRO MOCHI BRAND PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM PRAKASH KUMAWAT S/O SEDURAM KUMAWAT - Opp.Party(s)

PRASHANT KUMAR SHARMA

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 336/2023

 

Metro Mochi Brand Private Ltd. Through Its Br. Manager at Unit- G No. 38, Ground Floor, Triton Mall, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur.

...Appellant/Opposite party

Vs.

Ram Prakash Kumawat s/o Sh. Seduram Kumawat By Caste Kumawat r/o Village Akeda Chaud, Via Jahota, Tehsil Amber, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.) 302028

….Respondent/Complainant

 

Date of Order 18.03.2024

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Member(Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. Nirmal Singh Meratwal-Member(Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. Shailendra Bhatt- Member

Present:

Mr. Prashant Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the appellant

Mr. Ram Prakash Kumawat complainant present in-person

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

In this appeal the opposite party manufacturer of the disputed shoes has challenged the judgment dated 18.7.2023 of learned DCC Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur in its Complaint No. 628/2021 by which the appellant/opposite party manufacturer of the shoes has been ordered either to replace the shoes of the respondent/complainant or give refund of Rs. 2145/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. the date of presentation of complaint i.e. 23.11.2020 and has also awarded amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs. 5000/- in lieu of compensation towards mental agony and litigation expenses respectively.

 

From the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties it is more or less undisputed that the respondent/complainant had purchased the disputed shoes on 15.8.2020 in 'Sale' from the outlet situated at Unit-G No. 38, Ground Floor, Triton Mall, Jhotwara, Jaipur. The original cost of the shoes was Rs. 4290/- and the respondent/complainant purchased the same in 'Sale' wherein 50% discount was being given. As such cost paid was

3

 

Rs. 2145/- and invoice (Anx. C) was issued. The respondent/complainant has filed a complaint stating that the shoes purchased on 15.8.2020 showed defects viz. black spots over the shoes, wrinkles were seen and the leather was shrinked as such the shoes became unusable. This situation took place within two three weeks of the purchase. Since the shoes were neither replaced nor money was refunded therefore, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the manufacturer/vendor the complaint was filed which was allowed by the learned DCC Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur.

 

In the reply the appellant manufacturing company/ vendor has emphasized that since the shoes were purchased in 'Sale'. Neither exchange/ replacement or refund was available on the shoes, it being a discounted product nor any guarantee/warranty was available. The appellant/opposite party has drawn our attention towards the condition appended at the bottom of the invoice (Anx.C) “NO EXCHNGE ON BAGS, BELTS, ACCESSORIES & DISCOUNTED PRODUCTS”. Besides this it was also emphasized that the alleged defects were not due to manufacturing defect but these defects cropped

 

4

 

up due to improper usage and/or misuse of the shoes by the respondent/complainant himself.

 

The learned DCC Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur while disbelieving the averments raised in defence by the appellant/opposite party allowed the complaint as above.

 

During the course of arguments in the appeal the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party while reiterating the grounds of the appeal shown in the memo of appeal has emphasized on the condition appended at the bottom of the invoice and has also emphasized that the alleged defects were not due to manufacturing defect but these defects cropped up due to improper usage and/or misuse of the shoes by the respondent/complainant himself.

 

Per contra the respondent/complainant, who is an advocate himself, has vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party and has laid emphasis on the photographs of the disputed shoes (Anx. C-8 to C-11 ) According to him these photographs would reveal the miserable condition of the shoes which was

5

 

admittedly purchased on 15.8.2020. According to him merely purchasing the shoes in 'Sale' would not disentitle the respondent/complainant from bringing out the defects in the knowledge of the appellant/opposite party and claiming replacement or refund.

 

We have pondered upon the rival contentions of both the sides and have gone through the record meticulously.

 

Though there is an endorsement over the invoice “ NO EXCHNGE ON BAGS, BELTS, ACCESSORIES & DISCOUNTED PRODUCTS” but it does not mean that the respondent/complainant would be deprived of the remedy to seek replacement/refund of the money even if evident defects viz. black spots over the shoes, wrinkles, shrinking of leather have been seen in the disputed shoes within a short period of purchase.

 

In our humble view this condition would not allow the appellant/opposite party to sell any defective shoes and/or other products in the garb of 'Sale'. Otherwise also in our humble view this condition apparently shows that no

6

 

exchange was available on bags, belts and accessories. Though the word other discounted products has also been used but common rule of interpretation , if applied would mean that the discounted products intended herein would be of the class of products like bags, belts, accessories etc. In this way the condition itself is misleading/ vague.

 

The appellant/opposite party has also put emphasis on the facts that the respondent/complainant had himself approached the outlet of the appellant/opposite party and the shoes were not purchased by the respondent/complainant at the initiation of the appellant/opposite party. In our humble view this averment/contention seems to be ridiculous ex-facie because the respondent/complainant had approached the appellant / opposite party's outlet simply because the 'Sale' was advertised by the appellant/opposite party itself.

 

So far as the alleged improper usage/ misuse by the respondent/complainant is concerned, this also appears to be mistaken allegation because admittedly the respondent/complainant was none other than a respectable

 

7

 

advocate from whom it cannot be anticipated that he would improperly use or misuse the shoes.

 

On the basis of above contentions we are of the view that the learned DCC Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur has rightly arrived at a conclusion in favour of the respondent/complainant. In our humble view on the grounds enumerated in the memo of appeal, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned DCC Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur. As such the appeal does not deserve to be allowed and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

 

(Shailendra Bhatt) (N.S.Meratwal) (A.K.Chatterjee)

Member Member(Judicial) Member(Judicial)

 

 

nm