By Smt. E. Ayishakutty, Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-<br /> Complainant purchased a pair of shoes manufactured by Woodland Company from the opposite party for Rs.1600/- as reduction rate. At the time of purchase it has no any defect but at first use he noticed that the sole of the shoe is broken and became unusable. Complainant approached opposite party and convinced him the defect of the shoes. He asked to refund the price of it. But opposite party refused to refund or replace the shoes. Then on 20-02-08 complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party asking to refund the price of the alleged shoes. Opposite party replied through lawyer notice stating that complainant returned the shoe after using two or three days and its sole is worn out by use. Opposite party is not ready to refund the price or replace the alleged shoes. Hence he filed the petition before this Forum to get justice.<br /> 2. Complainant claims Rs.4650/- as price of the alleges shoes cost, compensation and other expenses all together.<br /> 3. Opposite party filed version. He denied all the contentions made by the complainant except the transaction made between them. Opposite party states that complainant purchased a pair of shoes from opposite parties shop for Rs.1350/- as special offer on 10-02-08. After four or five days complainant brought it back saying that its sole is broken and wants to replace it. As it was a genuine complaint, opposite party replaced the shoes with another shoes of Woodland Company for Rs.1600/- as reduction rate. After two days complainant again approached opposite party stating that the size of the shoes is not suitable to him and demanded more than one inch big size. But the shoes which the complainant purchased was worn out by use and not fit for resale. Opposite party has not get replacement from Woodland Company except the manufacturing defects. Opposite party is ready to rectify the alleged defects with his own cost. Complainant has not entitled to get any monetary relief from opposite party. The complaint is to be dismissed with costs.<br /> 4. Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 and MO1 is marked on the side of complainant. Counter affidavit filed by opposite party. Ext.B1 series, B2 and MO2 is marked on behalf of opposite party. Complainant was examined as PW1 and one parties of opposite party shop was examined as DW1.<br /> 5. Opposite party contends that he cannot replace the shoes for size difference. They can only replace it whether it has any manufacturing defects. In this case complainant has no disputes about the size. He alleges about the defects of the shoes. MO2 is the shoes opposite party contend to have replaced to the complaint prior to the sale of MO1 shoes.<br /> 6. The Forum examined the alleged shoes but do not find any manufacturing defect or any major defect to the shoes. The front upper part of the shoes sole is seen slightly detached for less than one inch and it is a serviceable defect. Opposite party in his affidavit admitted that they are ready to rectify the defect with their own cost. The complainant has not entitled to get any monetary relief from opposite party.<br /> 7. In the result we partly allow the complaint and direct opposite party to rectify the defect of the shoes within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Complainant shall make an application before this Forum within one month from the date of this order for returning the alleged MO1 shoes to him whereby he is directed to produce the said shoes before opposite party who shall rectify the defect of the shoes within the time fixed as above and return it to the complainant after intimating him that the defect has been rectified. MO2 shoes shall be returned to opposite party on his making an application for the same after the appeal time. We make no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 21st day of October, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1<br /> PW1 : Complainant. <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 <br /> Ext.A1 : Bill for Rs.1600/- dated, 15-2-2008 from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1<br /> DW1 : P. Ibrahimkutty, one parties of opposite party shop.<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1series and B2<br /> Ext.B1 : Bills (11 Nos.) from Able Sales and Agencies to opposite party.<br /> Ext.B2 : Lawyer notice dated, 20-2-2008 sent by complainant's counsel to<br /> opposite party.<br /> MO1 : Pair of shoes produced on the side of complainant.<br /> MO2 : Pair of shoes produced by opposite party.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER