Haryana

Kurukshetra

119/2018

Sudesh Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Relaxo - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Sharma

05 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.119 of 2018.

 Date of instt.: 28.05.2018.

                                                                         Date of Decision:05.10.2018.

Sudesh Kumari, Advocate, Chamber No.34 (Old), Distt. Courts Kurukshetra, R/o Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

1. Relaxo Footwear’s Limited Retail Shoppe: RS072, Kurukshetra, Shop No.868/8, Shur Sain Chowk, Kurukshetra-136118, Haryana, Phone: 01744-290868, GSTIN: 06AAACR0259DIZU.
2. Relaxo Footwear’s Limited Head Office: Aggarwal City Square, Plot No.10, District Centre, Mangalam Palace, Sector-3, New Delhi-110085.

(Principal Office: 30 Rakba Moja Hasanpur, Tikri Border, Bahadurgarh, Haryana-124007).

 

..………OPs.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                       Ms. Neelam, Member.

                       Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

 

Present :       Sh. Ashok Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                       OPs already exparte.

                                         

ORDER

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sudesh Kumari against Relaxo Footwear, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a leather sandal/ladies footwear with item no.64041110 10045346 description No.MJ-1246 ladies 5 black for a sum of Rs.1299/- vide invoice No.01718R072005937 dt. 20.07.2017.  It is alleged that after one week of its purchase, the said footwear got cracked from its sole.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited the shop of Op No.1 several times and requested him to replace the said footwear but the Op No.1 did not do so.  It is further alleged that the complainant also sent a legal notice dt. 03.10.2017 to the Ops through her counsel but the Ops did not pay any heed to it.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the footwear or to return the price/MRP of footwear to the complainant and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.             Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 05.07.2018.

4.             In support of her case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, legal notice as Ex.C1, copy of cash memo as Ex.C2, postal receipts as Ex.C3 & Ex.C4 and photograph of damaged/broken footwear as Ex.C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.   

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased a leather sandal/ladies footwear  from the Op No.1 on 20.07.2017 for a sum of Rs.1299/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said footwear got cracked from its sole within the guarantee/warranty period.  The complainant approached the Ops several times for replacement of said footwear but the Ops did not do so.  The complainant also sent a legal notice dt. 03.10.2017 (Ex.C1) to the Ops but the Ops did not pay any heed to it.  To prove her case, the complainant has testified all the facts in the affidavit, Ex.CW1/A so set out by her in the complaint.  Besides the said affidavit, the complainant has also tendered into evidence photograph of damaged/broken footwear.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops were proceeded against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective sandal/footwear of the complainant with the new one of the same value and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the cost of litigation charges.  However, it is made clear that if the said sandal/footwear is not available with the Ops, then the Ops will refund the cost of purchased sandal/footwear to the complainant.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its payment.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:05.10.2018.  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.