By Jayasree Kallat, Member:
The petition was filed on 18-01-2010. Complainant had filed the petition under Sec.12 of the C.P. Act alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Complainant purchased a pair of shoes from opposite party-1 on 20-10-2009 for Rs.2093/- as per invoice No. 1030 to give as a birthday gift to his son. O.P.1 had assured that the manufacturer of the shoes is an internationally reputed company. O.P.2 is the importer of the product which is of very high quality and the product also carries one year replacement warranty. Within 3 months of purchase the soles of the shoes started pealing off. The matter was informed to O.P.1. O.P.1 did not take any measures to replace the shoes. Complainant had filed the petition before this Forum which was numbered as 80/2009 aggrieved by the callous attitude of O.P.1. The matter was settled as per the settlement talk before the Forum. O.P.1 gave the complainant another shoes manufactured by O.P.2 which was worth Rs.3599/-. The complainant had to pay balance amount of Rs.1506/- for the replaced shoes. The complainant has field this petition alleging that the shoes replaced by the O.P. also became damaged. The soles are coming apart. The O.P. refused replacement of the shoes. Complainant is alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for selling such low quality shoes for which the complainant had to pay Rs.3599/-. Hence this petition seeking compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant.
Notice was served to the opposite parties. O.P.1 filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. The petition is not maintainable. The complainant had bought a pair of shoes for rs.2093/- on 20-10-2008 and not on 20-10-09 as alleged in the complaint. O.P. has not assured any warranty of replacement during the time of selling the shoes to the complainant. Complainant has not approached the O.P. within three months of the purchase. There is no cause for the soles of the shoes to come apart. The shoes bought by the complainant became defective due to the rough use of both the complainant and his son. The complainant had filed a petition C.C. 80/09 before the Forum. As per the settlement talk O.P. had replaced a pair of shoes on 11-06-2009 for an amount of Rs.3549/-. It is false to state that the replaced shoes also had the same defect of the soles falling apart. Complainant has not approached the O.P. with any complaints of the shoes. There is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. The shoes became defective if at all there is any defect it is due to the rough use of both complainant and his son while riding motor cycle. O.P. is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The petition is filed without any basis. The complainant is making it a practice of filing baseless petitions. Complainant is not entitled for any relief. There is no deficiency on the part of O.P. Hence O.P. prays to dismiss the petition with costs to the opposite party.
O.P.2 did not appear before the Forum. O.P.2 was called absent and set exparte.
Point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? If so what is the amount?
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 was marked on complainant’s side. M.O.1 the shoes was produced by the complainant. M.O.1 was identified and returned back to the complainant.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a pair of shoes for an amount of Rs.2093/- to give as a birthday gift to his son. The shoes became damaged within three months of purchase. The soles of the shoes started pealing off. complainant informed the matter to the opposite party. O.P. did not replace the shoes. Hence the complainant filed a petition numbered as C.C.80/09 before this Forum. The matter was subsequently settled. As per the terms of settlement O.P.1 gave a pair of shoes to the complainant which was worth Rs.3599/-. The complainant paid balance amount of Rs.1506/- along with Rs.2093/- the cost of the damaged shoes. According to the complainant the new pair of shoes is also having the same complaint as before. The soles are coming apart. The complainant approached the opposite party alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party and asked for replacement of the damaged shoes. O.P. refused. Hence complainant has filed this petition seeking relief. Complainant has produced Ext.A1 which shows that the shoes bought by the complainant on 20-10-2008 became damaged. As a settlement, complainant was given a fresh pair of shoes. The complainant had to pay Rs.1506/- more for the second pair of shoes. The replaced shoes which the complainant had purchased before had a value of Rs.2990/-. According to the complainant the replaced shoes for the second time also had same defects. The soles started falling apart. Complainant had produced the shoes before the Forum which was identified as M.O1 Perusal of M.O.1 shows that the soles of the shoes were pealing off. O.P. has not given any oral or documentary evidence to prove their version. We have only the evidence of the damaged shoe before us. It is an admitted fact that the same type of shoes got damaged and the complainant had to approach the Forum to get the shoes replaced. Now we find that the replaced shoes also show the same defects. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for relief.
Even though we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for relief it seems that the complainant has requested for a huge amount as compensation. It is also true that complainant had used two pair of shoes from 2008 onwards for about 2 years. Hence we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to get back the amount of the shoes along with compensation.
In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to return back Rs.3599/- the cost of the shoes along with compensation of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The opposite parties can take back the shoes after paying the amount to the complainant.
Pronounced in the open court this the 14th day of December 2010.
Date of filing: 18.11.2010
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-EMBER SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant.
A1.Letter of settlement by opposite party to the complainant dtd.11.06.09.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.C.Radhakrishnan (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
