Adv.Ravi Susha, Member
The complainant on 02/03/2012 had purchased a shoe of description “NEW JAL” by paying Rs.399/- for which opposite party had issued cash memo 02/03/2012/1/008601029.
After using the said shoes for a week, the front top portion of the left show was torn and the complainants little toe of the left leg protruded out through the torn portion. The complainant uses the size of ‘9’ inch.
(2)
Immediately the complainant took the shoe to the shop of opposite party for getting it exchanged or to get its price refunded. But opposite party asked the complainant to come on another day. Accordingly the complainant again approached the opposite party. At that time also the opposite party was not ready to redress the grievance of the complainant. Even though the complainant contacted the opposite party personally and over telephone several times, the opposite party was not ready to exchange the shoe or to refund the price.
As per the claim policy offered by the opposite party, it is stated on the reverse side of the cash memo that they will provide 100% replacement on manufacturing defects, if the concerned product is brought to their store within 60 days from the date of purchase.
In this case it can be seen that there is clear manufacturing defect and only because the shoe was manufactured using cheap material, the shoe was torn merely using it for 7 days.
Even though the opposite party is legally liable to replace the damaged shoe or to refund its value, they are desisting to act as per the claim policy.
(3)
The complainant is entitled to get the damaged article exchanged or to get its value refunded.
The complainant had caused to send a notice requesting to exchange the damaged article with a new one or refund its value within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, but the opposite party had not refunded the value of the shoe or sent any rely. Hence this complaint.
Points:-
The complainant filed affidavit. Exts.P1 to p4 marked.
The points that would arise for consideration are :
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
2. Compensation and cost.
In this case proper notice was issued to the opposite party from the Forum. After receiving the notice, the opposite party neither appeared before the Forum nor filed version. Hence the opposite party was set exparte.
(4)
The complainant filed chief affidavit and four documents. The documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P4. As the opposite party did not adduce any evidence, we are constrained to rely upon the evidence of the complainant. Through the chief affidavit and Exts.P1 to P4, the complainant proved his case. There is deficiency in service on the side of opposite party. Hence the complainant is entitled to get relief.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.399/- to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost to the proceedings. This order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dated this the 17th day of July 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari:Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
