O R D E R
SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Op with the grievance that he had purchased a pair of shoe from the Op shop on 02/10/2009 for Rs.2,000/-. At that time Op had assured long life of the shoe and durability. After some days of purchase i.e., some where in the first week of April, he noticed upper portion of the left shoe had signs of some liquid oozing out of the shoe like paste/gum from which shoe is stuck which made him not to use the shoe thereafter. The shoe leather was leaving sole of the shoe and stated that he used the shoe very sparingly only on some occasions. Then he approached Op narrated the same to them, who told them that it is manufacturing defect, they will send the shoe to the company and obtain approval and new shoe will be replaced and he will be informed through phone and gave an acknowledgement on 13/04/2010. Thereafter, he did not receive any positive response from the Op. Then he sent email. Then the Op through their response denied to replace. The Op did nothing to remove the defect and shoe was not repaired, therefore attributing gross deficiency to the Op has prayed for a direction to the Op to give him a pair of new shoe of the same model and colour or in the alternative to refund the cost of the shoe, to grant compensation of Rs.25,000/- and such other reliefs with cost.
2. Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version contending that the complaint lacks merit and is not maintainable. Op admitting sale of pair of shoe to the complainant on 02/10/2009 for a sum of Rs.1,795/- denied to had given life time warranty to the shoe. Op further admitting return of shoe by the complainant on 13/04/2010 for repair but denied to had told the complainant that the shoe has manufacturing defect. Op denying all other allegations of the complainant, stated that the shoe was sent for its examination to the company, which on examination it is not having any manufacturing defect and stated that the quality of the shoe was very good and noticed some kind of chemical/tar substance had fallen on the upper portion which is not removable for which, they are not responsible and by further contending that complainant had used shoe and thus has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the Area Sales Manager of Op have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced copies of few emails he had sent to Op and acknowledgement for having had given the shoe with complaint. Op has produced inspection report for having got inspected the complained shoe. We have heard the complainant who is in person. Heard the counsel for the Op and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.
- Whether the complainant proves that one of the shoe purchased by him from the Op containing manufacturing defect?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : See the final order
REASONS
6. Answer on point No.1: As stated above, there being no dispute between the parties regarding purchase of pair of shoe by the complainant from the Op, we shall confine ourselves to the grievance of the complainant about the defect whether one of the shoes purchased by the complainant has manufacturing defect or any defect attributable to the Op.
7. The complainant purchased shoes on 02/10/2009, he gave one shoe to the Op complaining sole pasting on the left odd upper leather melt by tar on 13/04/2010 for its repair for the first time, that means, the complainant admittedly had used the shoes for about 5½ months though he has stated he had used them on occasion, but one cannot deny that the shoes were in the use of the complainant till then without any problem in it. As per the own document of the complainant, the alleged defect in the shoe is not with regard to any sub-standard material used for the shoe or in preparing the shoes but sticking like patch alleged to had been caused due to fall of melt tar like. This job card under which the complainant gave shoe for repair bear the signature of the complainant. The complainant did not object the note made regarding the defect made by the people of Op when they received the shoe for attending and when that defect was recorded in presence of the complainant. Therefore, as per this document, we are not noticing any manufacturing defect in that shoe. This forum even secured the shoe at the time of arguments for its examination and found no manufacturing defect in it and we also observed some paste like liquid stuck in similar sign not even on the upper leather but at the edge of the sole and upper leather which is of very small in size. The Op after sending that shoe to the laboratory got it examined and produced an opinion, in which, it is stated that the shoe do not contain any manufacturing defect and what they found was some kind of chemical/tar substances. Admittedly, it was not there when the complainant had purchased this shoe and used it. The raw material used for the show has not oozed any liquid form it and there is no sign of any liquid coming out of the raw material. This sticky liquid pointed out by the complainant is of the external one and not the product of the raw material. Besides this, the complainant has not challenged the opinion of the company expert and has also failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the shoe. Hence, we find no merits in the allegations of the complainant and we therefore answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.
O R D E R
Complaint is dismissed. No cost
Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 10th December 2010.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
