D.o.F:18/1/12 D.o.O:17/9/12 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.No.15 /2012 Dated this, the 17th day of September 2012 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.RAMADEVI.P : MEMBER SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER Vinod Kumar.K, H.S.S.T(Social Work), T.I.H.S.S, Naimarmoola, Vidyanagar,Kasaragod. (in person) 1. The Manager, Bata India Ltd, Bata Shoppee, Near New Busstand, Kasaragod. 671123. 2 The Director ,Bata India Compnay,6A, Opposite parties S.N. Banerjee Road, Kolkatta, West Bengal, 70013 (Adv.Benny Jose,Kasaragod) ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENTThe case of the complainant Vinodkumar is that the Bata Shoe he purchased from Ist opposite party for ` 900/- became damaged within 2 days from the date of its purchase dt.20/12/2011, though he complained about the same to Ist opposite party they are neither ready to replace the shoe nor repay the amount and apart from that they behaved him rudely. Hence the complaint for compensation and costs. 2. Opposite party filed version denying the sale of the shoe to the complainant since according to them complainant did not produce the bill issued by them. Further if the complainant produces the bill and prove the purchase then they are ready to replace the shoe. The allegation of rude behavior is false and incorrect. 3. Complainant examined himself as PW1. The bill dtd.20/12/2011 for ` 900/- issued by the opposite party is marked as Ext.A1. On the side of Ist opposite party the dealer of opposite party N.S.Pillai filed affidavit. Exts.B1 to B3 marked on their side. Both sides heard and documents perused. 4. Ext.A1 produced by the complainant would prove that he purchased a shoe worth ` 900/- from the showroom of opposite party after a discount of ` 399/- ie, the actual price of the shoe purchased by the complainant is ` 1299/- and out of that ` 399/- is discount. 5. In his affidavit the opposite party came with a different contention that the complainant has purchased the shoe in discount sale and the items sold in discount sale has no warranty or guaranty . It is also stated in the affidavit that Bata India Ltd has got a customer claim settlement and exchange policy and customers claim will be compensated by the company that settled by the dealer. 5. But in Ext.A1 bill produced by the complainant nowhere it is stated that there is no guarantee or warranty to the items sold in discount sale. Further the basis of discount sale is also not seen mentioned any where. It is common that during festival season various commodity dealers and manufacturers are giving discounts as part of their sales promotion. Therefore the contention of opposite party that they did not give any warranty or guarantee to the items sold in discount sale itself amounts to unfair trade practice. 6. The complainant as PW1 deposed that he approached 3 times to get back his shoe replaced or price refunded. But opposite party insulted him and behaved him rudely causing mental agony. His version is remained unchallenged even in cross examination of PW1. 7. The rude behavior to a customer itself constitute serious deficiency in service of a trader/service provider. 8. The observation of Supreme court in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 are quote worthy and are as under: “The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to In our view, if a trader forces a consumer to seek remedy before Consumer Forum or before any other legal forum and does not redress it on its own, that itself cause mental agony, harassment as now a days the legal remedy has become costlier day by day and it is not only time consuming tortuous also and for this act the trader has to compensate a consumer ever arised about the consumer. Taking in view of the nature of the complaint and the defense taken by the opposite party we are of the view that complainant is entitled for adequate compensation. The complaint is therefore allowed and Ist opposite party is directed to take back the shoe sold to the complainant and refund its price ` 900/-. Opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally directed to pay ` 3000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardships they caused to the complainant together with a cost of ` 2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Exts. A1 - bill dtd.20/12/2011 B1-copy of Ext.B1 B2- claim settlement slip B3-General terms & conditions of exchange /claims PW1-Vinodkumar.K- complainant MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva | 
