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

============

Nitin Bansal s/o Sh. Dev Raj Bansal, #1243, Sec.18-C, Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

Vs

1)   Reebok India, Unitech Commercial Tower 11, Block-B, 7^th Floor, Sector 45, Hreenwoods City, Gurgaon (Haryana).

2)   Reebok Store, C/o Classic Centre, SCO No.20, Sector 17/E, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               PRESIDING MEMBER

           DR.(MRS.)MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Jasbir Singh, Counsel for Complainant.

Opposite Parties Ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.        The Complainant has stated that he purchased a pair of Reebok Shoes from the Opposite Party No. 2 on 23.01.2012. As these shoes started giving heel paining problem, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties to return the defective shoes. The shoes were handed over to the Opposite Party No.2 on 11.04.2012. As per the Customer Claim Form at Annexure C-1, the shoes were to be given back to the Complainant on 26.04.2012. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the Showroom of the Opposite Party No.2 a number of times, but no shoes were ever handed back to him. Eventually, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 5.7.2012 to the Opposite Parties, requesting them to either replace the defective shoes or refund the cost. However, when no action was taken by the Opposite Parties to redress his grievance, the Complainant filed the present complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to refund the cost of shoes, as well as given compensation for mental and physical harassment, besides cost of traveling and litigation expenses. 

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte on 19.11.2012.

3.        Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4.        We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have perused the record.

5.        As per the verbal averments and the record available on the file, the shoes purchased by the Complainant were handed over by him to the Opposite Party No.2 on 11.4.2012 with the defect of heel paining (Annexure C-1). There is no commitment on the Customer Claim Form regarding refund of price of the Shoes. But it is definitely established that the Shoes are in possession of the Opposite Party No. 2 and the grievance of the Complainant is not being redressed by the Opposite Parties. The Bill of the Shoes is also not on record, even though it is stated in the legal notice that the cost of the Shoes is Rs.3500/-. The evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted because the Opposite Parties have not come forward to contest the complaint.

6.        Keeping in view the foregoings, we deem it appropriate to allow this complaint. The complaint is accordingly allowed and the Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed to:-

i)   To provide a new pair of shoes to the Complainant of the same make & model;

ii)  To pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental & physical harassment and litigation expenses.

7.        This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Parties shall be liable to refund the cost price of the shoes as per the legal notice and prayer i.e.Rs.3500/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase, till its realization, besides the cost of litigation.

8.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

04^th December, 2012.                                         Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (DR.(MRS)MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA)

MEMBER