ORDER

29.02.2024

SH. RAJESH, MEMBER

1. Vide this order we will be deciding the admissibility of the present complaint.
2. A complaint has been preferred by complainants seeking direction to OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to complainants on account of compensation on account of selling defective shoes by OPs to complainant.
3. It is stated that on 22.11.2021 complainant’s son Mr. Vineet Kalra purchased a pair of shoe of Red Tape Brand from OP2 manufactured by OP1 for a sum of Rs. 1,919/- for his father i.e. present complainant.
4. It is stated that the father of complainant wore those shoes 3-4 times in his family functions after which pain started in his both feet. When complainant went to the hospital to consult a doctor about his pain the doctor told him the reason of Shoe Bite and this has also been stated in writing by OP No. 2 due to which accompanying fingers were also getting affected.
5. It is stated that complainant has returned the shoes to the OP No.2 dated 08.03.2022 and the salesman gave a challan receipt No. 066 to complainant with remarks “shoe bite”.
6. It is stated that after few days the pain started increasing in the feet of the complainant and blisters developed. The complainant got scared seeing the sudden increase in wounds and went to the hospital for his treatment. The complainant got his feet treated in Khetrapal Hospital. Despite treatment there was no relief in the pain in his left foot, due to which the doctors ordered him to amputate the toe of the left foot.
7. It is stated that complainant’s foot was operated on 10.01.2022 at Khetrapal Hospital. It is stated that due to bad his condition the complainant couldn’t devote time to his business and he had to face huge loss in his work. Hence the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging defect in shoes which caused serious wounds in his feet, therefore, seeking direction to OP to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/-.  
8. In order to admit the present complaint and issue notice to OPs it is felt that this Commission should form a prima facie opinion whether it was defective shoes which caused serious wounds in the feet of complainant. Complainant has taken treatment from Dr. Anil Khetrapal from Khetrapal Hospital therefore this Commission issued notice to Dr. Anil Khetrapal and sought expert opinion whether it was defective shoes which caused serious wounds in the feet of complainant.
9. It is stated by Dr. Anil Khetrapal that complainant was a diabetic patient to type II and he treated the complainant, however, he stated that shoe bite cannot be decided by surgeon only an occupational therapist may be able to verify the same. Whereas the complainant has taken a specific plea that is when complainant went to the hospital to consult a doctor about his pain the doctor told him the reason of Shoe Bite. In view of expert opinion of treating doctor himself the contention of the complainant is falsified. There is nothing on record which prima facie suggests that complainant got serious wound in his feet due to shoe bite. Rather as per record the complainant is a patient of diabetes type II which is suggestive to wounds in both feet of complainant. It is therefore prima facie no case is made out of selling defective product / shoes by OPs. There appears to be prima facie no fault on the part of OPs.  
10. It is pertinent to mention here that the bill for alleged defective shoes is in the name complainant’s son Mr. Vineet Kalra. It is stated by the complainant that complainant’s son Mr. Vineet Kalra purchased alleged defective shoes for complainant and delivered the same to his father complainant. Since the bill of the alleged defective shoes is not in the name of complainant in the present case therefore complainant is certainly not a consumer in the present complaint case as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
11. In view of above discussions we are of the considered opinion that complainant is not a consumer as defined under C.P. Act, 2019 and no case of selling defective goods against OPs is made out.  It is further to state that prima facie mere allegation of taking treatment for wounds in the feet will not be suggestive of defects in the shoes sold by OPs and has same cannot form a “consumer dispute” within the C.P. Act, 2019.
12. Since complainant is not a consumer and prima facie no case is made out of selling defective goods by OPs to complainant, therefore, present complaint is dismissed.  

Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission  on 29.02.2024.

(SANJAY KUMAR )              (NIPUR CHANDNA)            (RAJESH)

   PRESIDENT                                MEMBER                   MEMBER