<br /> <br /> Sri.K.Gopalan,President<br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to replace the slippers and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony with a cost of Rs.300/-.<br /> The case of the complainant is that she has purchased lady footwear (leather slippers) from the showroom of the opposite party ’Spenzy Bags & Boots’ in Fort Road, Kannur for Rs.499/- on the month of October 2007. Aero soft company is the manufacturer. Complainant used the slippers only on special occasions. Usually she used to travel in bike. So that the slippers were not used much for walk. Even then the straps of slippers became damaged soon, The complainant went to the showroom of opposite party on 7,.3,08 and the opposite party told the complainant that they will sent this to company for replacement and the same will be communicated to her when it is returned. They were also collected contact number. The next day they informed the complainant that the company has repaired it .When she went to collect the same she could see the slippers cobbled all over in a dirty manner. When the complainant asked about the work done the opposite party insulted her in front of others. Hence this complaint. <br /> <br /> Notice was sent to opposite party. But the opposite party did not care to appear before the Forum nor did he file the version. Opposite party was called absent and set exparte.<br /> The evidence consists of the oral testimony of the complainant and Ext.A1 marked on the side of the complainant.<br /> The main question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and whether the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed in the complaint.<br /> <br /> The oral evidence adduced by the complainant reveals that the complainant purchased the footwear in the month of October 2007. It was also come in evidence that the slippers were purchased for the purpose of occassional use of a special program days. Straps of the slippers damaged after 4 months. In her oral evidence it is deposed that 4 <br /> <br /> She went to the showroom of opposite party to report damage on 7.3.2008. From the day of purchase on October 2007 to the day of reporting damage on 7.3.08the slippers had been kept in the custody of the complainant. There is much importance for the length of time when considering the total life period of the subject matter. It is expected to make complaint within a reasonable time as far as this type of goods is concerned. There is no evidence to show that this footwear was kept unused in such a long time. Even if it has not been used one cannot make assure with the support of available evidence that it was kept idle for such a long period of 5 months. More over slip that has been marked as Ext.A1 cannot be considered as a document to prove that the article was purchased from the opposite party. Ext.A1 slip was issued at the time when the slippers were entrusted with the opposite party. There is no documentary evidence to prove the purchase and lacks justifiable explanation for the non-production of the receipt which is a basic requirement without which it is not possible to come in to a conclusion where from the article was purchased. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is not succeeded in proving the deficiency on the part of the opposite party. It is therefore the prayer of the complainant is disallowed.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- <br /> President Member Member<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.Slip dt.7.3.08 issued by OP<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1.Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil<br /> <br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur<br />