By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V, Member
The complainant is stated as follows :-
1. On 13/02/2022, the complainant had purchased a leather belt for his personal use from the shop of first opposite party and same is manufactured by the second opposite party. The third opposite party is service centre of the woodland company. The complainant paid Rs.2,426/- (Rupees Two Thousand four hundred and twenty six only)-to the first opposite party as the price of the belt. But it became damaged very soon. So the complainant handed over it to the first opposite party. Though the product was purchased at a high price, even after its service the damage was not repaired in an adequate manner. It is averred that when the complainant informed the legal consequences, then the first opposite party again registered a complaint to rectify the defect of the product. But so far no action was taken by the opposite parties. On 23/04/2022, the first opposite party told to the complainant that there is no scope for replacement of the product or refund of the amount paid for the product. So aggrieved by the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties, then complainant approached the Commission for redressing his grievance. According to the complainant, he don’t want to use the poor quality belt further more. The complainant stated that he has also incurred financial loss due to loss of job and expenditure to travel. The acts of the opposite parties caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. The complainant could not use the belt so far. Moreover the money received by the opposite parties as the price of the belt is kept by themselves. So the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
2. The complaint admitted on file and issued notice to the opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties filed version but not within the statutory period. Moreover the version of the second opposite party is signed by the first opposite party and no authorization or power of attorney is produced. So version of the second opposite party cannot be treated as legally prepared. The first opposite party received notice on 26/07/2022. But version was filed on 20/02/2023. So it is time barred one. The third opposite party did not appeared before the Commission. So the Commission proceeded the matter without any contentions of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant filed affidavit and produced documents. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A4 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of retail invoice bill dated 13/02/2022 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant at the time of purchase of the belt. Ext. A2 document is the copy of claim form dated 19/02/2022 issued by the customer care office of the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext. A3 document copy of e mail letter dated 19/02/2022 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext. A4 series documents are the copies of email transaction made by the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant also produced the belt before the Commission and Commission examined the condition of belt. The belt is marked as MO1 article. The opposite parties were not filed affidavit and no documents produced by them.
4. Heard the complainant and gone through documents of the complainant. The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are:
1) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.
2) Relief and cost of the proceedings
5. Point No.1 and 2
The complainant contended that the belt purchased on 13/02/2019 from the opposite parties was a damaged one and he could not use the same till the date. The complainant produced copy of retail invoice bill showing that the complainant had spent Rs.2,426/- for the purchase of the above said belt. The complainant produced the copy of retail invoice bill issued by the first opposite party showing the price of the belt and date of purchase and same is marked as Ext.A1 document. According to the complainant, the product was damaged on the very next day of its purchase and he handed over it to the first opposite party for rectifying the defect. The first opposite party is the seller and issued a claim form dated 19/02/2022 to the complainant and same is marked as Ext. A2 document. Ext.A2 document shows that the product was suffered from defect and it reveals that there was leather crack on the product. Ext. A1 and Ext.A2 document reveal that the defect on the product was found within a short span time from the date of purchase. The complainant has spent a sizable amount for purchasing a belt but the product remained idle as it failed to maintain quality. It is alleged by the complainant that the repair work was not done in an adequate manner to keep its quality and same was not even in a position to wear. According to the complainant the belt was returned to the opposite parties on 23/03/2022. The Commission finds that keeping a belt even more than one month for repair work itself denotes that the belt was suffered defects. Moreover the complainant produced copies of communication made between the complainant and the opposite parties. The complainant produced copies of email transactions took place between the complainant and the opposite parties and those documents are marked as Ext.A4 series documents. It also shows that the product is suffered material defect. It is further alleged by the complainant that the buckle of the belt has discolored and coating also crumbled. The complainant produced the belt before the Commission and Commission marked the product as Mo.1 article. On examination, it is found that the allegation of the complainant is sustainable and there is defect in the product of the opposite parties. There is no contra evidence available before the Commission as the opposite parties are failed to take up their contention in a proper way. So the Commission finds that complainant has proved his contention raised in the complaint and the opposite parties committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Commission consider the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service. The Commission also consider the pain and financial loss of the complainant suffered in the course of legal proceedings. Hence complaint is allowed in the following manner.
- The opposite parities are directed to refund Rs.2,426/- (Rupees Two thousand four hundred and twenty six only) to the complainant as the cost of the leather belt purchased from the opposite parties
- The opposite parties are also directed to take back the subject leather belt from the complainant and complainant is directed to hand over the same to the either one of opposite parties in this proceedings and issue a receipt to the complainant to that effect.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties .
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
- The complainant also directed to take back the belt from the custody of the Commission within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise entire amount shall bear 9% interest per annum from the date of the order till its realization
Dated this 24th day of April , 2023.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1: Copy of retail invoice bill dated 13/02/2022 issued by the first opposite party to
the complainant at the time of purchase of the belt.
Ext.A2: Copy of claim form dated 19/02/2022 issued by the customer care office of the
opposite parties to the complainant.
Ext A3: Copy of e mail letter dated 19/02/2022 issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant.
Ext A4: Copies of email transaction made by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
MO1: Belt
