Complainant Joginder Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to refund the full cost of shoes amounting to Rs.2600/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of purchase of shoes on 2.2.2021. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of financial risk, hardship, mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased one pair of shoes of (Boot) (Red Chief Make) from opposite party no.1 vide Tax-invoice-cum Cash Memo No.8851 dated 2.2.2021 for Rs.2600/-. Guarantee/warranty is only for repairs for six months. He has further pleaded that he had used the shoes in a most fair and appropriate manner with proper maintenance but the right foot shoes leather forming top line shaft of shoe (Boot) ruptured and shredded within a period of two months. Defects was noticed in the shoes on 31.3.2021 and he took the shoes to the opposite party no.1 on 2.4.2021 and asked to do the needful to carry out necessary repairs so as to put the shoes in a wearable shape or to take any other remedial steps to replace the shoes. The opposite party no.1 retained the shoes for about two months on the alleged reason of repair/replacement of shoes by the manufacturer company opposite party no.2. However, after lapse of two months, opposite party no.1 returned the shoes to him without any repair/maintenance or replacement and flatly refused to undertake repairs or replace the said shoes. A legal notice dated 15.09.2021 was served upon the opposite party by registered post. From the facts stated above, it is evident that opposite party have cheated him by selling inferior quality of shoes manufactured using spurious material and thus indulged in unfair trade practices and also amounts to deficiency in service in violation of consumer rights by refusing to adhere to the guarantee/warranty clauses to replace shoes. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. R.Cs. of opposite parties have not been received back. Period of 30 days had already been elapsed. Presumption could be drawn that opposite parties had been served but was intentionally evading the service of the notice. Case called several times, but none had appeared on behalf of opposite parties. Hence, opposite parties were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order 28.4.2022.
4. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
6. As detailed above, this complaint is regarding non repair/replacement of defective pair of shoes purchased by complainant from opposite party no.1 within warranty period. Complainant put on record at Ex.C-1 copy of cash memo No.8851 dated 2.2.2022 amounting to Rs.2600/- vide which the complainant purchased one pair of shoes. Guarantee/warranty of six months for repairs is also mentioned in this memo.
7. It is further alleged by complainant that one shoe got damaged within two months period and returned to opposite party no.1 for repairs/replacement. But opposite party has neither repaired or replaced even keeping it with him for two months period and returned back to complainant without repairs/replacement. Complainant alleged it to be unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. Neither opposite party no.1 nor opposite party no.2 has replied to the complaint in this Commission, hence ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.4.2022.
9. From the above facts, it is clear that items purchased by complainant gone defective within warranty period and opposite party no.1 fails to repair/replace the item. Hence it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. From the evidential part, it is proved that the complainant time and again approached opposite party for removal of his grievance but was unnecessarily harassed by opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party did not bother to appear in the Commission and prefer to proceed exparte vide order dated 28.04.2022 and also failed to satisfy the complainant and also did not care to contest the claim of the complainant and rebut the evidence led by him as aforesaid and as such it can be concluded without any hesitation that either opposite party admit the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter. In this way, the evidence led by the complainant goes unrebutted and unassailed. Hence we are of this view that present complaint can be best disposed of by giving directions to the opposite party.
11. In views of the aforesaid discussions, facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party no.1 is hereby directed to refund Rs.2600/- an amount paid by complainant with 9% interest from the date of purchase till realization of the same within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of order. Further opposite party no.1 is directed to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for litigation and harassment.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
May 27, 2022 Member
*MK*
