Punjab

Sangrur

CC/641/2017

Tejbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shiva Shoes Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajan Kapil

27 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 641                                                                                        

                                                                  Instituted on:  01.12.2017                                                                                              

                                                                Decided on:    27.04.2018

 

Tejbir Singh son of Daljit Singh resident of village Deh Kalan, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

 

                                                …. Complainant.      

Versus

 

1.      Shiva Shoes Traders, opposite District Courts, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

2.          Liberty Shoes Limited Liberty House, Liberty Road, Post Office Box No.103, Karnal 132001 ( Haryana) through its Managing Director.

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Rajan Kapil,  Advocate                          

 

FOR  OPP. PARTY  No.1     :        Shri Pawan Gupta, Advocate

 

FOR  OPP. PARTY  No.2     :        Exparte

                 

 

Quorum

                            

 

Sarita Garg,  Presiding Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

 

1.             Tejbir Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a pair  of shoes on 28.10.2017 from the OP no.1 vide bill number 16523 for an amount of Rs.1999/-.  After some time the complainant noticed  that sole of the shoes developed irregular surface and material  used in the sole of shoes is of inferior quality as the same pealed of at certain places.  From the outlook of the shoes it seems that there is a manufacturing defect which cannot be cured or the shoes is of outdated lot .  As such the OPs had sold the shoes of sub standard quality.  Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to replace the shoes or to refund the amount of Rs.1999/-,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account mental agony and harassment and  Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were sent to the OPs but despite service OP no.2 did not appear and as such Op no.2 was proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.1, it is admitted that the complainant purchased  a pair of shoes on 28.10.2017 from the Op no.1 vide bill number 16523 worth Rs.1999/-. It is submitted that shoes brand  and article number 7190 was purchased vide bill number 16523 but not the shoes in question which is not the same which was purchased on 28.10.2017 by the complainant.  The shoes sold  on 28.10.2017  was a quality product and  was of well known brand.  It is denied that OP no.1 sold a shoes on 28.10.2017  to clear the stocks  from outdated lot of shoes. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP1/1  to Ex.OP1/2 and closed evidence.  

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is the case of the complainant that he had  purchased a pair  of shoes on 28.10.2017 from the OP no.1 vide bill number 16523 for an amount of Rs.1999/-.  The complainant has further stated that after some time of  purchase of shoes he noticed  that sole of the shoes developed irregular surface and material  used in the sole of shoes is of inferior quality as the same pealed of at certain places and  from the outlook of the shoes it seems that there is a manufacturing defect which cannot be cured or the shoes is of outdated lot . 

6.             It has been specifically contended by the OP no.1 that  branded shoes and article number 7190 was purchased vide bill number 16523 by the complainant but the shoes, as alleged by the complainant  is not the same which was purchased on 28.10.2017 by the complainant.  The shoes sold on 28.10.2017 was a quality product and  was of well known brand.  It has been denied that OP no.1 sold a shoes on 28.10.2017 to clear the stocks  from outdated lot of shoes. In his affidavit Ex.OP1/1, Shri Ravinder Pal proprietor of Shiva Shoes Traders has stated that  the shoes in question was  of article number 7139 instead of 7190  which was purchased by the complainant from OP no.1.

7.             As per direction of the Forum, on 28.03.2018 the complainant has produced the original shoes which was inspected by the OP no.1 . During the course of arguments in the present case, the complainant has also produced original shoes purchased by him from OP no.1 as per direction of the Forum and same was thoroughly inspected by the Forum.  The complainant has himself stated that he had purchased a pair of shoes from OP no.1 for Rs.1999/-  vide bill number 16523  which is Ex.C-2 on record. From the perusal of it we find that pair of shoes is having article number 7190.  But after inspection of original shoes we find that it is not of article number 7190 rather the shoes in question was of article number 7139. As such it is totally a different pair of shoes which is as alleged by the complainant which totally falsifies the case of the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence to prove his case. As such he has totally failed to prove his case.  

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we dismiss the present complaint of the complainant however with no order as to costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                April  27, 2018

 

 

 

                 (Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Sarita Garg)                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Member                                                   Presiding Member