Date of filing: 01.09.2014.
Date of disposal: 12.01.2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Monday, the 12th day of January, 2015
C.C.No.190 of 2014
Between:
Tokala Nirmala Kumari, D/o Ananda Rao, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, R/o.H.No.37-3-18, Badavapet, Jakkaraiah Street, Vijayawada – 520 010.
…..Complainant.
And
Reliance Foot Print, Rep: by its Authorized Signatory, C/o Reliance Fresh Limited, KBR Heights, 1st Floor, 40-1-115, MG Road, Besides Varun Building, Vijayawada – 520010.
.. … Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 05.01.2015, in the presence of Sri K. Rama Chandra Rao, advocate for complainant; opposite party appeared as inperson and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party to return the amount of defective foot wear of Rs.1700/-, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-, to pay Rs.300/- towards to and fro charges and award costs and other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submitted that the complainant visited the opposite party and purchased branded foot wear “Sketheras” for Rs.1700/- and the amount was paid through Credit Card. At the time of purchase, the opposite party personnel informed that there is implied warranty of three months and assured that they will replace the same if there is any defect. The complainant's son used the same and on 20-2-2014 the upper sole and lower sole were separated and the complainant approached the opposite party and gave for rectification and the opposite party after pasting the upper and lower sole returned the same. But on 15-4-2014 again the said problem arosen and the complainant returned the same to opposite party who received the same by duly acknowledging and assured for exchange of new foot wear for defective one. The complainant after one week approached the opposite party for foot wear and the opposite party stated that they sent the same to manufacturer. The complainant made several visits to the opposite party shop from time to time, but the opposite party not rectified the defect or not exchanged the same, which is nothing but deficiency in service. The complainant got issued legal notice on 23-5-2014 demanding to replace the defective foot wear with new one, but the opposite party maintained silence. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party. The opposite party filed its version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that the complainant purchased the foot wear on 16-2-2014 for Rs.1700/- with a condition 'no exchange or return basis' through HDFC card and it is a 50% discounted product. It is further contended that the complainant to spoil the reputation of company and for greedy of money filed this complaint against the opposite party and got it in 50% discount and that the discount products does not carry warranty and that though they repaired the product for twice, the complainant got issued notice with ulterior motive and that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant filed her chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 on her behalf. The personnel of opposite party filed chief affidavit, but no documents were marked.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
5. Now the points that stood for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in selling defective foot wear to complainant?
- If so, to what relief?
Point No.1:
6. As seen from the material on record, it is clear that the complainant purchased “SKETHERAS” from the opposite party for Rs.1700/- on 16-2-2014 and she paid the amount through HDFC Credit Card. Ex.A1 bill showing payment of Rs.1700/- of HDFC Card discloses the said fact. Further the opposite party not denied the purchase of footwear by complainant. The main grievance of complainant is that on 20-2-2014 i.e. within four days of purchase, the lower sole and upper sole of shoe separated and the complainant returned the shoe to opposite party for rectification and the opposite party pasted the sole and handed over to complainant. But again on 15-4-2014 the same problem arose and the complainant handed over the same to opposite party. Ex.A3 receipt discloses the said fact. Perusal of ExA3 discloses the reason as ' pasting'. Later the opposite party people informed that they send the same to manufacturer. According to complainant till now the opposite party has not returned the said shoe after repair or replaced the same with new one in spite of issuance of legal notice under Ex.A4. Ex.A5 is postal acknowledgment of opposite party.
7. The opposite party in its version admitted in para No.4 that they got repaired the product for twice on 20-2-2014 and 15-4-2014. As such, it is clear that the said shoe is having some defect with regard to pasting of soles. Further it is not the case of opposite party that after repair they have handed over the said product to the complainant. The only contention of opposite party is that the complainant purchased the said product in 50% discount and that it is not having warranty and with a condition of 'no exchange offer'. Except making averments in the version, the opposite party has not filed any documentary proof with regard to alleged discount and conditions. Further the repair of product twice, as admitted by the opposite party goes to show that there is some defect in the shoe. If at all the product is purchased for 50% discount and there is no exchange offer, the opposite party cannot sell the defective goods to customers like complainant. Further the opposite party personnel appeared in person before this Forum and stated that he will provide a new shoe in stead of defective shoe. But it seems that the opposite party has not provided the new product. In view of the above circumstances, the complainant is entitled for refund of cost of product besides costs and compensation.
8. In this case, the complainant has not shown the manufacturer of product. But our Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that the manufacturer and trader are one and the same, but not different. As such the opposite party is liable to make the loss good occurred to complainant.
9. According to Section 2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act any fault or imperfection or short coming in its quality, potency, performance or standard which is required to be maintained by under any Law for the time being in force or as is claimed by a trader in any manner whatever in relation to any goods comes within the mischief of defective goods. As per Section 14(1) (a) & (b) the buyer is entitled to remedy by way of either removal of the defect or by way of replacing the goods with similar description or by way of return of the price or charges paid by the consumer.
Point No.2:
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite party is directed to refund the cost of shoe of Rs.1700/- (Rupees one thousand and seven hundred only) to the complainant by retaining the defective shoe with them besides payment of compensation of Rs.1000/- and costs of Rs.500/-. Time for compliance is one month. The other claims of complainant shall stands dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 12th day of January, 2015.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 16.02.2014 Bill of credit card.
Ex.A2 Voucher given by the opposite party.
Ex.A3 15.04.2014 Original copy of receipt.
Ex.A4 23.05.2014 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A5 Postal acknowledgement.
On behalf of the opposite party: -Nil-
PRESIDENT (FAC).
