Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/58

Sunil Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reebok West Wind Retails - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                            Complaint No:  58 of 20.01.2016.                                                                     Date of Decision: 03.03.2017.

Sunil Kapoor son of Sh. Ram Nath Kapoor, resident of Block-1, House No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.                                                                                                                   ..… Complainant

                                                  Versus

1. Reebok West Wind Retails, Shop No.24, Gole Market, Model Town, Ludhiana-141002 through its Manager.
2. Reebok India Company, 530/1, 3 & 4, Bijwasan, Opp. Ambedkar Colony, New Delhi-61 email:
3. Reebok India Company, MaaDham, Opp. Writer Company, Village KherkiDaula, Gurgaon-122001. Tel. 0124-4124190 through the concerned.
4. Mochiko Shoes Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.2912, MauzaMazri Grant Le Tapper, District Dehradun (U.K.) through the concerned.

…..Opposite parties 

                              Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         In person.

For OP1 to OP3               :         Sh. Sachin Seth, Advocate.

For OP4                           :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                 Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he purchased pair of shoes article #M41349 from OP1 on 24.01.2015 for Rs.2,759/-. Part of that price was paid in cash and part by credit/debit card. These shoes were offered during festive-offer annual-sale period, where discount of 40% on MRP of Rs.4,599/- was offered. In May 2015, upper net portion of left pair of the shoes started coming apart from its seams and the same stood deteriorated. Owing to this the shoes looked awkward. Thereafter, OP1 received from complainant the pair of shoes for doing needful on his part against receipt dated 30.05.2015 acknowledging manufacturing defect. OP1 telephonically intimated complainant on 02.06.2015 that in lieu of the old shoes he (complainant) can buy another item of the same value available with it, but said purchase will have no offer of discount whatsoever. Complainant was not in need of other item, so  he requested OP1 to arrange for another fresh and flawless pair of shoes of the same article. In the alternative request for refund of the payment was submitted to Ops. OP1 did not  concede to these genuine requests of complainant. Request letter dated 03.06.2015 to OP1 was sent through registered post and thereafter, email dated 30.09.2015 was sent to OP2, but of no avail. Ops  connived with each other. Defective product was sold by OP1 to complainant. Said product manufactured by OP4 and OP3 marketed/sold the product, despite the fact that the same was not fit for sale. Genuine grievance of the complainant even not redressed and as such, complainant had to purchase another new pair of shoes by paying price of Rs.3,428/-. By pleading deficiency in service, prayer made for directing Ops to refund Rs.2,759/- along with interest at the bank rate. Compensation of Rs.50,000/-, litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- and punitive and exemplary costs of Rs.35,000/- more claimed.

2.                 In joint written statement filed by OP1 to OP3, it is pleaded, interalia, that the complainant is not entitled to get any refund because complaint is filed on false, frivolous and baseless grounds.  The goods were sold under various schemes having discount etc. Customers were clarified that discounted goods does not carry any warranty of replacement or of refund in any case, whatsoever. Complainant purchased the shoes on discounted rates during end of yer in seasonal sale scheme, but after satisfaction of the product. Ops gave three months warranty to all its customers for any manufacturing defect under the scheme. Complainant was informed about the same at the time of purchase of the goods. Terms and conditions were printed on the receipt issued by the Ops in that respect on the receipt itself. Complainant approached OP1 after five months from the date of purchase of shoes  for replacement under the warranty scheme. OP1 informed complainant that product purchased cannot be replaced because the warranty period had already expired. However, as a goodwill gesture, OP1 agreed to replace the shoes with same model number, if available in the stock. Later on OP1 informed complainant that same model number shoes not available. Option was given to the complainant to purchase something else for the actual paid amount, but complainant remained adamant in getting discount again for the fresh arrival (shoes) or for refund of the paid amount. There was no policy of the company to refund the amount on the goods sold on discount under any scheme. Complainant refused to accept the exchange offer given by OP1 and as such, complainant not entitled to claim any relief. OP2 and OP3 has been mis-joined because they sold all the goods to OP1 in its perfect condition to its satisfaction. Those purchased goods by OP1 delivered to the customer to its satisfaction and as such, privity of contract virtually alleged between complainant and OP1 only. This Forum alleged to be having no territorial jurisdiction. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                 OP4 is exparte in this case.

4.                 Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8 and thereafter closed evidence.

5.                 On the other hand counsel for OP1 to OP3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Vikas Ranjan, the legal counsel of OP3 and thereafter closed evidence.

6.                 Synopsis of written arguments submitted by complainant, but not by Ops. Oral arguments of complainant and counsel for OP1 to OP3 heard and records gone through carefully.

7.                 Complainant has relied on retail invoice Ex. C1 for proving that he purchased the pair of shoes from OP1 on 24.01.2015 by paying the discounted price of Rs.2759/-. MRP of the sold shoes was Rs.4599/-. The case of the complainant is that this pair of shoes was purchased on discount of 40% on MRP in offer during festive offer annual sale period. On Ex. C1 itself, it is mentioned through clause No.4 that warranty against manufacturing defects in the product exists for only three months from the date of purchase. That warranty as per clause No.5 printed on Ex. C1 itself, can be availed against manufacturing defects, but not due to mishandling of the product. As per clause No.2 of Ex. C1 product once sold can only be exchanged from the store from where they were purchased. This exchange offer as per clause No.3 of Ex. C1 permissible only, if the product returned in an unused condition within 15 days from the date of purchase. However, the case of the complainant is that after purchase of the shoes in question on 24.01.2015, the defect in the shoes developed on May 2015 i.e. after more than four months of purchase. This defect occurred when shoes were used by complainant and as such, terms and conditions of exchange offer printed as condition No.2 and 3 on Ex. C1 not applicable in this case because exchange offer permissible only on return of the shoe in unused condition. So the case in hand governed by condition No.4 printed on Ex. C1.

8.                 As already referred above, as per condition No.4, the warranty exists against the manufacturing defect for only three months from the date of purchase and as such, it is obvious that this warranty was to remain in force until 23.04.2015 because shoes were purchased on 24.01.2015. Until 23.04.2015, no defect in the pair of shoes in question developed, but the same developed in May 2015 as per claim of the complainant and as such, certainly submissions advanced by Sh. Sachin Seth, Advocate for OP1 to OP3 has force that complainant is not entitled to any relief because the warranty period even expired before May 2015.

9.                 The complainant vehemently contends that the shoes in question were deposited by him with OP1 on 30.05.2015 and in that respect receipt Ex. C2 was issued. Words “For claim” are mentioned in Ex. C2 and as such, complainant contends that the same reflects as if complainant claimed for replacement of the shoes of equal worth. However, counsel for OP1 to OP3 contends that as a goodwill gesture offer was given to complainant to purchase something else equivalent of the price amount of Rs.2759/- paid by the complainant, but the complainant did not avail that offer. During course of arguments, complainant claims that he has purchased another pair of shoes on 27.11.2015 vide receipt Ex. C7 and as such, he is not in need of new pair of shoes. Owing to this, complainant contends that he is entitled for refund of the paid price of Rs.2759/-. It is not the whim or fancy or desire of complainant that is to prevail because contractual obligations are governed by the terms and conditions of the contract arrived at between the parties. As bill Ex. C1 containing the printed conditions produced by the complainant himself and as such, he is estopped from claiming that he did not go through the terms and conditions printed on Ex. C1. It is well settled that terms and conditions printed on the retail invoice bill are binding on the contracting parties, who are complainant and OP1 in this case. So complainant cannot wriggle out of the condition No.4 of Ex. C1. As warranty period was already over and as such, adamancy of the complainant in not accepting the goodwill gesture offer denudes him from claiming the replacement of the shoes now. Even if the complainant may have sent letter Ex. C3 through postal receipt Ex. C4 or even Ex. C5 and Ex. C6, but despite that he is not entitled for any relief except to seek return of the pair of shoes deposited by him with OP1. Even if through Ex. C2, the broken shoes accepted for claim, despite that complainant is not entitled for any claim of refund or replacement of the shoes because such replacement or refund sought after the warranty period of three months. Every product bound to have shelf life and use life because everything in this word is mortal. In view of this fixation of time of three months for warranty, complainant could have sought replacement within warranty period and not after that. The purchase of shoes by the complainant through Ex. C7 took place after about six months of deposit of the shoes in question with OP1 through receipt Ex. C2 on 30.05.2015. It cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that complainant would have remained without shoes for six months and as such, the purchase of the shoes by complainant through bill Ex. C7 has no bearing on the merits of this case. Submission advanced by the complainant that warranty of 1 year was provided has no force because that submission is against condition No.4 printed on bill Ex. C1 itself. So complainant at the most entitled to get back the pair of shoes deposited by him with OP1 on 30.05.2015 through Ex. C2, if he so desires. In case complainant approaches OP1 for that purpose within 30 days from today, then OP1 would return the shoes in his possession in the same condition as they are at present. However, in view of the lapse of the warranty period, complaint is not maintainable.

10.               As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                         (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K. Dhir)

                                         Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:03.03.2017.

Gobind Ram.