Shoe Park. V/S M.S. Suresh. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/10/811

M.S. Suresh. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shoe Park. - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

17 Jun 2010

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/811

M.S. Suresh.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Shoe Park.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 13.04.2010 DISPOSED ON: 17.06.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 17th JUNE 2010 PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.811/2010 COMPLAINANT Sri.M.S. Suresh, Lecturer, Maths Section, Maharani Womens Science College, Palace Road, Bangalore 01. In Person V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES Shoe Park, No.3 and 4, SSB Matt Building, Opposite Elite Hotel K.G. Circle, Bangalore-09 Rept. by its Shop retailer Ex - Parte O R D E R SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace new Chappals of liberty Company and to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service. 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows: On 23.01.2009 complainant purchased one pair of liberty Chappals from OP for a sum of Rs.1,450/-. Within 40 days of its purchase the said Chappals came to be broken. Hence complainant requested OP to replace the said Chappals with a new one. OP did not adhered to the request of the complainant. So complainant returned the said Chappals to OP and collected the acknowledgement from OP. Complainant has produced the copy of the invoice dated 23.01.2009 for having purchased Chappals from the Liberty Show room of the OP. and Endorsement from OP dated 06.03.2010, for having returned Chappals to OP. Even after repeated request when OP did not replaced the new Chappals, the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for necessary reliefs. 3. On the registration of complaint notice is sent to OP. Inspite of service of notice OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP is placed ex-parte. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced invoice dated 23.01.2009, for sum of Rs.1,450/- and endorsement made by OP dated 06.03.2010 for having taken back the Chappals from the Complainant. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then heard the complainant. 5. It is contended by the complainant that he purchased one pair of liberty Chappals from OP on 23.01.2009 for sum of Rs.1,450/-. Within 40 days of its purchase the said Chappals came to be broken. The complainant requested OP to replace the same with a new Chappals. When OP did not agreed to replace the same complainant returned back the said Chappals to OP as per the endorsement of OP dated 06.03.2010. As on today said Chappals are in custody of OP. Now the grievance of the complainant is he is unable to use the Chappals upto his satisfaction. The refusal to replacement by the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence complainant approached this forum for necessary reliefs. 6. We have perused the complaint averments, unchallenged affidavit evidence and documents produced. The documents produced by the complainant supports the case of the complainant. Within the warranty period complainant is entitled for free services and replacement. From the complaint averments and the documents produced it is clear that OP supplied defective Chappals further failed to provide proper service and replacement within the warranty period. Refusal to replacement by OP within the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on its part. From the absence of the OP inference can be drawn that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service against OP. under the circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for replacement of new liberty Chappals of same brand and size in the place of old one along with litigation of Rs.500/-. Accordingly we proceed pass the following. O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace one pair of Chappals of same brand, size and clour in place of old one and to pay Rs.500/- towards the litigation cost to the complainant within 15 days from the date of communication of this order. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 17th day of June 2010.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT gm.

COMPLAINT FILED: 13.04.2010 DISPOSED ON: 17.06.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 17th JUNE 2010 PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.811/2010 COMPLAINANT Sri.M.S. Suresh, Lecturer, Maths Section, Maharani Womens Science College, Palace Road, Bangalore 01. In Person V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES Shoe Park, No.3 and 4, SSB Matt Building, Opposite Elite Hotel K.G. Circle, Bangalore-09 Rept. by its Shop retailer Ex - Parte O R D E R SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace new Chappals of liberty Company and to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service. 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows: On 23.01.2009 complainant purchased one pair of liberty Chappals from OP for a sum of Rs.1,450/-. Within 40 days of its purchase the said Chappals came to be broken. Hence complainant requested OP to replace the said Chappals with a new one. OP did not adhered to the request of the complainant. So complainant returned the said Chappals to OP and collected the acknowledgement from OP. Complainant has produced the copy of the invoice dated 23.01.2009 for having purchased Chappals from the Liberty Show room of the OP. and Endorsement from OP dated 06.03.2010, for having returned Chappals to OP. Even after repeated request when OP did not replaced the new Chappals, the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for necessary reliefs. 3. On the registration of complaint notice is sent to OP. Inspite of service of notice OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP is placed ex-parte. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced invoice dated 23.01.2009, for sum of Rs.1,450/- and endorsement made by OP dated 06.03.2010 for having taken back the Chappals from the Complainant. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then heard the complainant. 5. It is contended by the complainant that he purchased one pair of liberty Chappals from OP on 23.01.2009 for sum of Rs.1,450/-. Within 40 days of its purchase the said Chappals came to be broken. The complainant requested OP to replace the same with a new Chappals. When OP did not agreed to replace the same complainant returned back the said Chappals to OP as per the endorsement of OP dated 06.03.2010. As on today said Chappals are in custody of OP. Now the grievance of the complainant is he is unable to use the Chappals upto his satisfaction. The refusal to replacement by the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence complainant approached this forum for necessary reliefs. 6. We have perused the complaint averments, unchallenged affidavit evidence and documents produced. The documents produced by the complainant supports the case of the complainant. Within the warranty period complainant is entitled for free services and replacement. From the complaint averments and the documents produced it is clear that OP supplied defective Chappals further failed to provide proper service and replacement within the warranty period. Refusal to replacement by OP within the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on its part. From the absence of the OP inference can be drawn that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service against OP. under the circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for replacement of new liberty Chappals of same brand and size in the place of old one along with litigation of Rs.500/-. Accordingly we proceed pass the following. O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace one pair of Chappals of same brand, size and clour in place of old one and to pay Rs.500/- towards the litigation cost to the complainant within 15 days from the date of communication of this order. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 17th day of June 2010.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT gm.