COMPLAINT FILED: 28-07-2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 29-09-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1776/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.Raghavendra,<br /> Press Reporter,<br /> Prajavani,<br /> No.75, M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> Party in Person<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1) The Manager,<br /> Bata India Ltd.,<br /> Bata Shoe Store,<br /> 61/A, Brigade Road,<br /> Bangalore .<br /> <br /> <br /> 2) Bata India Ltd.,<br /> 418/02, M.G. Road, Sector 17, Gurugoan-02.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SHRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the C.P.Act of 1986 seeking direction to Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to refund an amount of Rs.1,299/- being the value of the Chappals purchased from OP and in addition an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony suffered on an allegations of deficiency in services. <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is stated in brief as aversed in the complaint is as under: -<br /> <br /> 2. On 04-12-2005 at 5.30 p.m. complainant purchased a pair of chappals in the shop of OP 1 for Rs.1,299/-. At the time of purchase OP 1 assured that the chappals are of 100% leather made and a warranty period was given for 6 months. After a week of purchase, the complainant found defect in the chappals purchased. Immediately OP 1 was requested to replace the same for that OP did not agree. Thereafter the complainant returned the chappals on 26th of the same month to OP 1. After that OP 1 offered to pay 75% of the value of chappals and refused to refund the entire value of the chappals. On 30-06-2009, the complainant approached OP1 and requested to replace another pair of chappals, in spite of it he has not taken any action. Hence, he has filed this complaint seeking relief. <br /> <br /> 3. OP 1 & 2 in spite of service of notice failed to appear. Hence, place exparte. Official of OP appeared later in the Forum and prayed for time.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. Heard from complainant side, as OP remained absent it was taken as heard. <br /> <br /> 5. Points for consideration are :-<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Our findings to the above points are :-<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant along with complaint has produced the receipt for having purchased pair of chappals from the OP 1 shop for Rs.1,299/-. Within a week complainant found defect in the chappals purchased. Hence he requested the OP to replace the chappals, but OP has not responded for the same. Thereafter the complainant left the chappals in the shop of OP 1 on 26-05-2009 and requested for replacing the same. OP has not agreed for the same and subsequently it appears that OP has come forward to refund 75% of the value of the chappals. But the complainant has not accepted the same. OP has not contested the proceedings by filing version; the same is sufficient to hold that OP is not denying the complaint allegations. <br /> <br /> 8. From the affidavit evidence of the complainant it becomes clear that in spite of repeated request by the complainant to replace the chappals OP has not agreed to replace the chappals. OP has not agreed for the same. Therefore we are of the view that the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP 1 & 2. The value of the chappals purchased is Rs.1,299/-. The complainant is entitled for refund of the entire amount. In addition the complainant was made to approach this Forum on account of OPs attitude of not refunding the entire amount. The complainant incurred expenses and suffered mental agony and physical strain. As a result he is entitled for compensation of Rs.500/-. The compensation claimed of Rs.5,000/- is at higher side, that much amount cannot be awarded. The complainant is also entitled for cost of litigation. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following :-<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. <br /> <br /> OP 1 & 2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,299/- and pay a compensation of Rs.500/- and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 29th day of September 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />