<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 15th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1864/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Manjunatha Gowda,Aged about 28 years,S/o Venkateshappa,No.13, 3rd Floor,Sathyappa Plaza,Behind Union Bank,Avenue Road,Bangalore – 560 053.Advocate – Sri.M.S.Byre ReddyV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,M/s. Milton Shoes,Multibrand Showroom,No.353-353/1, 10th Cross,Opp. Himalaya Drug House,Sampige Road,Malleswaram,Bangalore – 560 003.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.15,799/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant being an Advocate by profession purchased a pair of shoe at OP outlet for a valid consideration of Rs.799/- on 08.03.2008. When he took home the delivery of the said shoes to his utter shock he observed there is a damage in the said shoes. Immediately he brought back the shoes to the shop of the OP on the next day and gave it to them and sought for refund of the cost. Though OP initially agreed to refund but thereafter went on postponing the payment. Ultimately refused to refund on the ground that “goods once sold will not be exchanged” and if at all complainant so wishes he can purchase any other item at their shop for the same cost. Complainant was not happy with the response of the OP. Complainant got issued legal notice on 26.03.2008. Again there was no response. For no fault of his complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The hostile attitude of the OP amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Though complainant invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version and affidavit denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP once the goods are sold cannot be exchanged. Complainant having accepted the said terms and conditions purchased the said shoes. With all bonafides OP was ready to offer new pair of shoe in place of the so-called damaged shoes. Actually there were no damages noticed in the said shoes but complainant insisted for refund of the cost for which OP is not agreeable. Though OP brought new pair of shoes several times to the Forum to replace and exchange, complainant did not heed to the said request. Under the circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<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 /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one pair of shoes from OP under Tax invoice No.5176 on 08.03.2008 for a valid consideration of Rs.799/-. Tax invoice is produced. According to the complainant when he took delivery of the said shoes and went back to his house he was shocked to notice the damages in the said shoes. That is why on the very next day that is on 09.03.2008 he brought back the said shoes to the shop of OP and gave it to them. OP received the same and made an endorsement on the Tax invoice referred to above. Contents of the said document is not at dispute.<br /> <br /> 7. From 09.03.2008 the said shoes are still lying with the OP. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the damaged shoes. His repeated requests and demands made to OP to refund the cost of the shoes went in futile. That is why he got issued legal notice on 26.03.2008. Copy of the legal notice is produced. It appears there was no response again. OP on one or the other reason and grounds OP went on postponing the settlement of the dispute. Neither it replaced the shoes nor it refunded the cost. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.<br /> 8. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. OP has contended that goods once sold will not be exchanged. If that is so, what made the OP to bring a pair of new shoe to the Forum for exchange is not known. If the approach of the OP is bonafide, they would have exchanged the said shoes when complainant appeared before them with the complaint. It appears no such steps are taken. It is further alleged by the OP that though they are ready to exchange the shoes and ready to give alternative items available at their shop for the said cost of Rs.799/- but complainant is insisting for the refund of the cost.<br /> <br /> 9. For this defence basically there is no proof. So viewed from any angle one thing is clear that the shoes sold by the OP to the complainant after collecting the huge amount are defective and damaged. When that is so, OP is liable to replace the same with a brand new defect free shoe of the same cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. The hostile attitude of the OP must have caused some mental agony to the complainant. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay some litigation cost. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as such he is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the brand new shoes to the satisfaction of the complainant of the same brand and model of worth Rs.799/- and pay a 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 him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 15th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />