| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.282 of 22-04-2016 Decided on 07-04-2017 Ramandeep Singh aged about 24 years S/o Surjeet Singh R/o Village Ghudda, Tehsil and District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Red Tape, Registered Office: 14/6, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001 (U.P), through its Managing Director. 2.Mirza International Ltd., Post Office Bazaar, Harrods, Bathinda, through its Proprietor. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.K.S Jeeda, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Rajdeep Singh, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Ramandeep Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Red Tape and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased pair of shoes brand Red Tape Style RT 59102 colour Brown for Rs.3195/- vide invoice dated 21.1.2016 from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1. It was informed by opposite party No.2 that the shoes carries oral warranty of one year from the date of its manufacturing and in case of any defect, the pair of shoes shall be replaced free of cost. It is alleged that after purchase of the shoes, the complainant started using them, but these got torn on 25.2.2016. He reported the matter to opposite party No.2 and handed over it the shoes. The defective pair of shoes were replaced with pair of black colour shoes free of cost on 8.3.2016. After sometime from the replacement, the complainant started using the shoes. In the first week of April 2016, the pair of shoes developed cracks. The complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of opposite party No.2 and asked it to replace the defective shoes, but it refused to do so and entertain him. It is also prayed that due to defective shoes, the complainant is unable to use them. Due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and their acts and conduct, he has suffered from the physical and mental harassment. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. He has prayed for replacement of defective shoes with the pair of shoes of same brand. He has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/- and refund of Rs.3195/- with interest @ 18% per annum. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version. In the written version, opposite parties have raised the legal objections regarding locus-standi; cause-of-action; maintainability of complaint and concealment of material facts. It is pleaded that the complainant is not consumer as defined under 'Act'. As such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. Even otherwise, as per terms and conditions of the company, all litigations are subject to Kanpur jurisdiction only. As such, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. The intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this case. The parties have to examine the witnesses and they are to be cross-examined by the other party. It cannot be decided in the summary procedure. As such, the complainant, if so advised may approach the civil court. He is estopped from filing this complaint by his own acts, conduct and acquiescence. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature. It has been filed to cause undue harassment. It is liable to be dismissed with penalty of Rs.25,000/- as per provisions under 'Act'. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the shoes for Rs.3195/- on 21.1.2016. It is denied that opposite party No.2 gave any oral warranty of one year. It is also denied that any replacement was offered free of cost. It is further mentioned that there are general terms and conditions of opposite party No.1 with regard to the shoes. As per terms and conditions, if there is any manufacturing defect and pointed out within 7 days from the date of purchase, the shoes are to be exchanged. The price is not liable to be refunded and company has given 3 months warranty against pasting and stitching of footwear. It is denied that the shoes were torn out on 25.2.2016. It is further mentioned that the complainant came to opposite party No.2 and disclosed that he does not like the shoes. As such, the shoes be exchanged with black colour shoes. Though, there was no defect in the shoes, but still opposite party No.2 accepted the shoes with a condition that they will be sent to opposite party No.1. In case, opposite party No.1 agreed for exchange, the complainant will be given another pair of shoes of black colour. Opposite party No.2 received the black colour shoes from opposite party No.1 and same were handed over to the complainant. It is further mentioned that the complainant never brought the defective shoes to opposite party No.2. It is also stated that he came to opposite party No.2 and revealed that he did not like the design of the shoes and asked that if opposite party No.2 may agree for replacing the shoes with another designed shoes, he may bring the pair of shoes for replacing with another design, but since the claim lodged by the complainant could not be met with. As such, he went from the showroom of opposite party No.2. All other averments of the complainant are denied by opposite parties. In the end, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopies of retail invoice, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C4); his affidavit dated 19.9.2016, (Ex.C5) and submitted the written arguments. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Jindal dated 14.10.2016, (Ex.OP1/1); copy of terms and conditions, (Ex.OP1/2) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Admitted facts are that the complainant purchased the shoes from opposite party No.2 on 21.1.2016, which were got replaced on 8.3.2016. Of-course, complainant has pleaded that these shoes were replaced due to defect and as per opposite parties, earlier shoes were replaced at the desire of the complainant regarding change of colour. It is immaterial whether the shoes were replaced for change of colour or for any other reason. The controversy is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief qua the shoes received on 8.3.2016 or not. He has pleaded that opposite party No.2 provided verbal warranty for one year, but there is no evidence to prove this fact. Opposite parties have produced general terms and conditions, (Ex.OP1/2). It is well settled that the documentary evidence has to prevail upon oral evidence. As per these general terms and conditions, opposite parties were to exchange the shows within 7 days from the date of purchase. Opposite party No.1 has also provided 3 months warranty against pasting and stitching of footwear. The complainant has alleged that there appeared cracks within short period, but there is no evidence except bald statement in the form of affidavit. Moreover the cracks as alleged and not proved are also not covered under the warranty provided in general terms and conditions. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is without merits and it stands dismissed. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 07-04-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
