Haryana

Kurukshetra

98/2018

Aditya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance retails - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Kapoor

29 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.98 of 2018.

Date of instt.: 08.05.2018.

                                                                         Date of Decision:29.01.2019.

Aditya son of Shri Satish Chander, resident of House No.2265/7, Phase-II, Sector-7, Housing Board Colony, Kurukshetra.

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

1. Reliance Retail Limited, Registered Office, 3^rd floor, Court House Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Tallao, Mumbai-400002, through its authorized signatory.
2. Reliance Foot Print Retail Limited, F-28, F-39, Kessel Mall, Sector-17, Kurukshetra through its Authorized Signatory. 

 

..………OPs.

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

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                       Ms. Neelam, Member.

                       Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

 

Present :       Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for complainant.

                       Sh. Ashwani Goel, Adv. for the OPs.

                                         

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Aditya against Reliance Retail Ltd. and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a pair of shoe of Louies Phillips Brand (Model No.LPBCL-16029) for a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the Aditya Birla Group and Reliance Footprint Moment Mall, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, authorized sales and service partners of the Ops in the month of July, 2017 for wearing the same in his own marriage which was to be performed on 11.11.2017.  It is alleged that the above-said showroom became closed/shut down by Reliance Company.  It is further alleged that on the day of his marriage, the complainant found that the dealer of the Ops has gave some other pair of shoe instead of pair of shoe shown by them at their showroom.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops several times to replace the defective shoes but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  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 refund the cost of shoe alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.   

3.             Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the Ops are not the manufacturer of the shoe who being a retailer are not even remotely responsible for any defect in the said product which from any stretch of imagination cannot be fastened on the retailer i.e. Ops No.1 & 2; that the complainant approached the Op No.2, after more than five months from the date of its purchase, the Op No.2 rendered all possible help to the complainant even though the shoe was not purchased from the Kurukshetra Store and the complainant was not having original invoice issued by the Store from where the complainant allegedly purchased the shoe; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.Op1 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased a pair of shoes from the authorized sales and service partner of the Ops in the month of July, 2017 for a sum of Rs.4,000/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that the dealer of the Ops company gave some other pair of shoes instead of pair of shoe shown by them at their showroom.   The complainant sent two e-mails i.e. dt. 21.11.2017, Ex.R2 and dt. 23.11.2017, Ex.R3 but the Ops neither replied the said e-mails nor took any action regarding replacing the defective shoes.  The complainant deposited the said shoes with the Op No.2, which is clear from repair slip No.314 dt. 10.12.2017, Ex.R4.  The complainant requested the Ops several times to replace the defective shoes but the Ops did not do so.  To prove his case, the complainant has testified all the facts in the affidavit, Ex.RW1/A so set out by him in the complaint.  Besides the said affidavit and e-mails, the complainant has placed on file snaps of defective shoes, Ex.R4 to Ex.R7.  Hence, in view of such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the replacement of defective shoes.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective shoes of the complainant with the new one of the same company.  However, it is made clear that if the same shoes as purchased by the complainant is not available with the Ops, then the Ops will refund the cost of purchased shoes to the complainant.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order.  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.: 29.01.2019.    

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.