DOF 02.12.2011
DOO.16.02.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this, the 16th day of Februry 2012
C.C.No.362/2011
Burnadin.A,
C/o.Vattamala House,
P.O.Rayarom,
Kannur 670 571 Complainant
M/s.SYLCON
H.K.Caltex,349B/349C,
Caltex Junction, Kannur 1. Opposite party
O R D E R
Smt.M.D.Jessy, Member
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to refund of the value of a damaged chappal which was purchased by the complainant from opposite party.
The brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows: On 01.10.2011 complainant purchased a pair of ladies chappal from opposite party’s shop by paying `990. After one week complainant noticed a crack on the top of chappal and top side was separated from the sole of the chappal. The very next day complainant approached opposite party and intimated the situation. But the manger of the shop refused to replace the chappal and behaved very badly to the complainant whereby caused complainant great mental agony and hardship. Since the chappal is defective there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to pay a sum of `2000 towards compensation including the price of the chappal.
On getting the complaint forum sent notices to opposite party. But opposite party remained absent and subsequently set exparte.
On the above pleadings the main question to be decided is whether or not there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and if so what is the quantum?
The evidence consists of chief affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 marked on his side.
Through his chief affidavit complainant stated that he has purchased one chappal from the opposite party’s shop by paying `990. Ext.A1 is the bill which shows that complainant purchased a ladies chappal from the opposite party on 1.10.11 by paying an amount of `990. After one week complainant noticed a crack on the top of the chappal and top side was separated from the sole of the chappal. The very next day complainant approached opposite party’s shop with the damaged chappal with its bill. Complainant submits that within a week itself a crack was developed on the top of the chappal. The very next day complainant approached opposite party’s shop with the damaged chappal and requested to replace the same. But the opposite party rejected the demand of the complainant. Since the chappal purchased by the complainant is having manufacturing defect and of low quality one, opposite party is having a duty to replace the same. Complainant submitted that the attitude of the opposite party caused much hardship and mental pain to the complainant. The purpose for which such an expensive chappal was bought by the complainant could not be fulfilled. Complainant also submitted that the said chappal is manufactured with low quality material and hence the same was damaged within a week itself. Even after receiving notice from the Forum opposite party did not take care to appear before the Forum and to file the version. The deliberate silence on the part of opposite party shows that the opposite party is very well knows about the low quality of the chappal sold to the complainant. The complainant purchased such an expensive chappal with a view to use the same for a reasonably expected period Since it has become defective within a short period of one week, we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and thus opposite party is liable to refund the price of the chappal `990. Complainant has not adduced sufficient evidence to show that he had suffered pain and sufferings due to the act of the opposite party. Considering the nature of the complaint complainant is also entitled to get `250 as cost of the proceedings. However, we feel that refund of purchase price and cost is sufficient to meet the end of justice and thus not allowed the compensation.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay `990 (Rupees Nine Hundred and Ninety only) being the cost of the chappal together with `250 (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as the cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party as per the provisions of consumer protection Act. It is further clarified that the complainant has to return the damaged chappal to the opposite party if demanded.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1.Copy of the cash receipt issued by OP
Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil
Witness examined for either side: Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
