Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/278

Rakesh Karir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shoppers Stop - Opp.Party(s)

compl in person

22 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:278 dated 10.06.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 22.03.2022. 

 

Rakesh Karir (Senior citizen of 67 years) retired Inspector of Police Department, resident of H. No.1177, Street No.3, Chander Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Retailer/Manager of Shoppers Stop Showroom Situated at Ground Floor, Pavillion Mall, Ludhiana.
2. Adidas Corporate office address:

Limited Commercial Tower-II, 5^th Floor, Gurgaon, Sector 45, Greenwood City Block-B, Opposite HSBC Building, Gurgaon-122003. Phone: 0124-4569100.

…..Opposite parties 

          Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Nitin Kapila, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that on 22.06.2018, the complainant purchased one pair of Adidas shoes from OP1 for a sum of Rs.3799/-. The shoes got torn after a period of 6-7 months i.e. within the warranty period. The complainant lodged a complaint with OP1 who asked him to allow him to verify the position from OP2 within 30 days and retained the shoes with him. After 30 days, when the complainant contacted OP1, he was told that OP1 had received an email from OP2 stating that the warranty period of 3 months had expired and therefore, no action could be taken on the complaint of the complainant. The complainant checked on internet and found that internationally Adidas brand of footwear carries a warrantee of two years and not three months. This shows that OP1 has given a false reply. Moreover, the complainant was not told at the time of sale of shoes that the same carried warranty of only three months. It is further proved that the complainant was sold some duplicate shoes. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to replace the defective shoes and also to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and mental torture.

2.                Upon notice OP2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint, however, has been resisted by the OP1. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor any cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint. According to OP1, on receipt of complaint from the complainant, it was forwarded to OP2. The claim was, however, declined by OP2 as the shoes carried a warranty of only three months against any manufacturing defect and the product was out of warranty as on the date of lodging of the complaint. On merits, the sale of shoes to the complainant vide bill dated 22.06.2018 for a sum of Rs.3799/- has been admitted. It has, however, been denied if the shoes were torn within a period of 6-7 months or that they were still under warranty period. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA as well as affidavit Ex. CB of Sh. Navish Karir along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sukhchain Singh, Customer Care Associate and Unit Administration Head of OP1 along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R4 and closed the evidence.

6.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 22.06.2020. We have, however, heard the counsel for OP1 and proceed to decide the case on merits.

7.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that the shoes purchased by the complainant from OP1 for a sum of Rs.3799/- were torn after a period of 6 months, but the OPs refused to replace the same nor they returned the cost of the shoes. However, the complainant has not placed on record any document which might show that the shoes carried a warranty of two years. The complainant has relied upon the document Ex. C5 which the complainant claims to have downloaded from website of Adidas and as per Ex. C5, the products of Adidas could be returned within 2 years. However, OP1 has placed on record Ex. R3, which provides that warranty against the manufacturing defect for the purchased products exists only for three months from the date of purchase for all orders placed through website or authorized retail store and further that the warranty can be availed against manufacturing defect and it cannot be claimed for the defects due to mishandling of the product or normal wear and tear. The complainant has not pointed out any manufacturing defect in the shoes which was purchased on 22.06.2018 and admittedly, the request for replacement/refund was lodged with OP1 only after 6-7 months of the purchase. It is therefore, evident that the request for replacement was lodged after the warrantee period of 3 years has expired. Moreover, in the photograph Ex. C2 of the shoes, no inherent manufacturing defect is visible. Besides, the shoes if they are worn or used for 6-7 months, the same are bound to have some normal wear and tear which cannot be equated with a manufacturing defect. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Rakesh Karir Vs Shoppers Stop                                      CC/19/278

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. Nitin Kapila, Advocate for OP1.

                   OP2 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.