Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/53/2021

Gagandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Skechers Shoes - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Sumanpreet Kaur

02 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHGARH SAHIB

                                       Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2021

                                                Date of institution:  10.05.2021                                              Date of decision   :  02.09.2021

 

Gagandeep Singh Virk aged about 45 years son of late Shri Gurdeep Singh, resident of village Gunia Majri, P.O. Nogawan, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 

                                                                …Complainant

Versus

 

1.     Skechers Shoes Showroom No.8-9, Bestech Square Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-11, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its authorized signatory.

 

2.     Skechers Retail India Pvt. Ltd. 803 & 804, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hira Nandni Business Park, Sahara Road, Next to Hyatt Regency, Andheri (East Mumbai- 400099 through its authorized signatory.

 

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

               

Present:    Ms. Sumanpreet Kaur, counsel for complainant.

                OP No.1 Ex-parte.

                Shri Anwar Hussain, counsel for OP No.2.

               

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President

 

Order

 

                The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’ for short) on the ground that the CC had purchased a pair of shoes from OP No.1 on 03.08.2020 vide bill No.B79/FCM/00158 by paying an amount of Rs.4,800/-. It is alleged that one year warranty was also given on the shoes. After 9 few days, from the ankle side of the shoes an iron piece started prickling the foot of the CC as and when the CC used it for morning walk. Ultimately the shoe got damaged from the inner ankle side since the iron piece got torn. As such the shoe developed manufacturing defect. It is further averred that the bill issued by OP No.1 has been misplaced and later on OP No.1 even refused to replace the shoes. Legal notice was sent to the OPs but of no use.

 

                Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought replacement of the shoes alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment. The complaint of the CC is duly signed and is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.

2.             OP No.1 has chosen to remain ex-parte. 

3.             OP No.2 has filed detailed reply and has raised 9 number of preliminary objections that the complaint is baseless, devoid of any merits, the CC has not approached this Commission with clean hands as he has got no cause of action etc. It is further alleged that the alleged manufacturing defect in the shoes cannot be determined by submitting a complaint. It requires proper analysis, test report and also required an expert opinion. The CC has failed to prove any negligence on the part of OP No.2. It is further averred that the CC has mislead the Commission and has concocted a false story of manufacturing defect. Moreover, the compensation and cost of litigation and refund is beyond the express terms and conditions of warranty. By citing various judgments of various courts, OP No.2 has sought dismissal of the complaint. 

4.             The CC in support of his complaint tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1. On the other hand OP No.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Mayuresh Jambunathan and documents Ex.R-1 and R-2.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.2 and have also gone through the record.

6.             In the absence of any cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence from OP No.1, who has chosen to remain ex-parte and has not come forward to contest the claim of the CC, we have no hesitation in declaring that the CC had purchased a pair of shoes from OP No.1 on 03.08.2020 vide Bill No.B79/FCM/00158 by paying an amount of Rs.4,800/-.

7.             There is no evidence to rebut the contentions of the CC that the shoe started pricking from the back side of the ankle and started hurting the ankle of the CC, as and when he wore the same immediately after its purchase. It is also proved on the file that despite his request to OP No.1, the shoe was neither replaced by OP No.1 nor refund was given to the CC. The shoe was sold to the CC on 03.08.2020. It is alleged by the CC that there is one year warranty on it.  In the absence of any evidence on behalf of OPs, we have no alternative except to believe the contentions of the CC which appears to be genuine and reasonable.

8.             Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed against OP No.1 and we direct OP No.1 to replace the shoe of the CC or refund the amount of Rs.4,800/- to the CC. We further direct OP No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the CC. However, OP No.1 will be at liberty to claim the same from OP No.2 from whom the alleged pair of shoes has been purchased by OP No.1 for further resale to the CC, if OP No.1 desires so. Compliance of this order be made by OP No.1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of the order.   Free certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

September 02, 2021

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

                                                       

 

(Ms. Shivani Bhargava)

Member