Date of filing:-12/09/2017.
Date of Order:-01/08/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 44 of 2017.
Prahallad Sahu, Son of Phakira Sahu, aged about 42(forty two) years, Occupation –Advocate clerk, resident of Gudesira, Po:- Gudesira, Ps. Sadar Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Vrs.
Rohit Kedia,Trader-Bazar Style Retail Pvt. Ltd. Son of Gobinda Mohan Kedia Bargarh, aged about 32(thirty two)years, Ward No.10(ten), Po/Ps/Dist-Bargarh ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri R.P.Singh, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.01/08/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Fact of the case ;-
The case of the Complainant is that he being persuaded by the Advertisement about the warranty and Guarantee quality, longevity and warranty of exchange if found any defects of it’s cloth materials purchased one pant vide No-SB302021 (M)X28X32 on the specified rate in cash vide invoice No-137201/17.
The case of the Complainant is that, after bringing the same to his house he found a considerable portion of his pant has been torn which cannot be managed so he approached the sales persons of the Opposite Party and asked them to exchange the same with a new one, in response to his approach they demanded his retail invoice and wrote down therein in capital letter No EXCHANGE, being surprised with such behavior of those salesmen he approached their Manger but turned down his request and asked him to wait for time till the new stocks reached to them, but after that though the Complainant has tried to exchange the same but all the time the Opposite Party is avoiding with different pleas which in his view is unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party. So seeing no other alternative ultimately the Complainant wanted to file the case against the Opposite Party and asked the sales personnel the name of the present Opposite Party but they all declined to give his name and address so the Complainant applied before the Municipal Authority through R.T.I. Act and on being disclosed thereby got the address and name of the present Opposite Party and served him with a Pleader Notice but to no effect hence filed the case claiming the relief for return of the Pant and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards his mental agony and litigation expenses, and in support of his case has filed the sale invoice and the sheet of advertisement of the Opposite Party.
Perused the complaint and the documents and on hearing the advocate for the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party, and on being noticed the Opposite Party filed his version denying the case of the Complainant as false and fractious one with a malafied intention and in addition to that has also denied the case of the Complainant as the said material is a promotional product having no warranty on it since it has been sold on a discount price and also the same has been taken by the Complainant in a good condition so there is no inherent defect in it having no exchange warranty as such liable to be dismissed in as much as it is not coming under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Perused the complaint, it’s supporting documents and on hearing the Advocate for the Complainant and the version of the Opposite Party some points crop up before us to properly adjudicate the case as follows.
Whether the Complainant is coming under the Act ?
Whether the Opposite Party has committed unfair trade practice and is deficient in giving proper service ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief claimed for ?
While considering the point as to whether the Complainant is coming under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, it is observed from the invoice issued by the Opposite Party small though it is not clearly visible because of the quality of the paper and printing on it, but however it has been admitted by the Opposite Party in it’s version in para no-8(eight) that it is a promotional product sold at a low price which clearly indicates that the said pant has been sold by the Opposite Party for some consideration which attracts the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 U/s 2(D) and when it was found to be defective and being denied by the Opposite Party it attracts the provision of the same as a consumer dispute hence in our view it is very much coming under the Act, hence in our considerate view it is answered in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly, while dealing with the question as to whether the Opposite Party has committed unfair trade practice and deficient in rendering service to the Complainant, in this context it is already established that the Complainant has purchased the pant from the Opposite Party and the same was physically presented before the Forum, from our verification it is found that the damage in the same is quite an inherent one, it is not an unnatural event where the same might have slipped over from the view of the Complainant while purchasing the same for some reason but in our view the damage in the same pant is such that it can not be overlooked as self created or anything of that sort, so being a business house it is the primary duty of the Opposite Party to take care of the complain of the customer in as much as it is within the warranty period and was presented by the Complainant within two days of it’s purchase, but it has not been done so, which in our prudent view is a clear case of unfair trade practice coupled with deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Party keeping aside the purpose of sale, for which he is liable in accordance with the provision of the Act, as it is the primary purpose of enactment of the Act is to provide protection from the unfair traders and from their deficient action, hence in our view it is answered in favor of the Complainant.
In view of the facts narrated above in our foregoing paragraph and opined thereto it is obvious upon us to opine further that the Complainant is entitled to the relief to the extent that, he is entitled for exchange of new pant and an amount of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only towards his physical and mental harassment caused to him by the Opposite Party. Hence order follows.
O R D E R.
Hence the Opposite Party is directed to exchange the damaged pant of the Complainant with a new one of the same cost and in addition to that also directed to pay him Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only towards his mental and physical harassment within thirty days of receipt of the order in default of which would be liable to the punitive measure as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The order is pronounced in the open Forum and in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party and accordingly it is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt.01/08/2018.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
