D.O.F:27/01/2023

                                                                                                      D.O.O:10/07/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.23/2023

Dated this, the 10^th day of July 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                          : MEMBER

Sumathy.M

W/o Kunhikannan.C

Velakunnu House

Bedadkka. P.O                                                                    : Complainant

Chengala. Via, Kasaragod.

                                        And

The Manager

PICASO

II^nd Cross Road, Old Bus Stand, Kasaragod                          : Opposite Party

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER

          This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant and her son purchased shoe from Opposite party’s shop PICASO on 14/01/2023 for Rs. 850/-.  After 2 days of purchase the canvas of the shoe came out.  When the complainant contacted opposite party through phone, he agreed to do need ful.  As per the consultation with the Opposite party   the complainant and her son approached Opposite party shop on 19/01/2023, but the staff of Opposite party behaved in rude manner.  They were not ready neither to replace the shoe nor refund the price of the shoe.  Even though the staff of Opposite party   had given the mobile number of the owner of the shop he was not available in phone.  The staff of Opposite party   insulted the complainant infront of other customer.  At the time of purchase of the shoe the bill was not issued to her.  So she demanded the bill,,the complainant was constrained to wait there till 4 pm to get the bill.  At last the staff of Opposite party   affixed the canvas of the shoe with superglue and given the bill also.  The complainant suffered severe mental agony and loss due to the irresponsible attitude of Opposite party.  Hence the complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from Opposite party  and 5000/- as cost.

          Notice to Opposite party   served, but he remained absent.  Name of Opposite party   called absent set exparte.

          The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination the bill of the shoe is marked as Ext A1.

          The question raised for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party   ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief
3. If so what is the relief?

For convenience all questions can be discussed together.

Here the complainant and her son purchased a shoe from the shop of Opposite party   on 14/01/2023 for Rs. 850/-.  Unfortunately after two days of purchase the canvas came out from the newly purchased shoe and the complainant approached Opposite party   after his response on hearing the complaint.  But when the complainant approached shop the owner was not there and his staff refused to heed the grievance of the complainant.  Instead they insulted the complainant infront of other customers.  This made severe mental agony to the complainant.  After long waiting in the shop she availed the bill.  it is the duty of the Opposite party   to issue bill for each and every purchase.  Non issuance of the bill proves unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party .The bill produced with the complaint is dated 19/01/2023 but the purchase was on 14/01/2023. Ext A1 shows the bill is subsequently issued by Opposite party   on demand of the complainant.  As per the affidavit of the complainant, she was insulted infront of other customers and constrained to wait for a long time in the shop to get the bill, is severe deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party.  even though the owner is agreed to do needful his staff was not ready to provide after sale service, which is a right of the customer.

          The complainant produced Ext A1 bill dated: 19/01/2023 for Rs. 850/-.  A newly purchased shoe was not supposed to damage within one week. If so happens Opposite party‘s liable either to replace it or refund the price.  The owner of the shop is liable for the misbehavior of staff.   In the absence of contra evidence the complainant is entitled for relief.

          The complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and deficiency in service.  But she has not produced any documentary evidence to show such a huge loss.  Hence considering the facts and circumstances of this case this commission is of the view that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.  The complainant is entitled for a cost of Rs. 3000/- also.

          In the result complaint is allowed directing Opposite party   to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) along with a cost of      Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order.

     Sd/-                                                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Bill

    Sd/-                                                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/