BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.104 of 2015

Date of Instt. 16.03.2015

Date of Decision :18.06.2015

Ram Singh son of Inder Singh R/o 1/6, Central Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

The Proprietor, Grover Sons, 404, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Skekhar Prabhakar Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.RK Bhalla Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant had purchased a pair of laces shoes of leather make liberty from the opposite party at a cost of Rs.2350/-. After a period of two months upper of the shoes cracked. A complaint to this effect was made to the opposite party by the complainant, after admitting that uppers have been cracked, the opposite party assured to replace the same within 7 days. On 10.12.2014, the pair of shoes was handed over to the opposite party and opposite party issued the complainant a repair slip dated 10.12.2014 bearing serial No.15 but till date, the opposite party has not fulfilled its commitment despite the repeated approach made for the purpose. The complainant after fed up with attitude of the opposite party served them a legal notice whereby the opposite party was requested to hand over the shoes within 7 days but the opposite party did not reply to the notice. The product, otherwise, was not that of leather rather the same was made of raxion which have been sold by the opposite party fraudulently to the complainant as a leather pair. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay the cost of pair shoes i.e Rs.2350/-. He has also claimed Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the present petition is not maintainable against the opposite party as the opposite party has never sold the shoes as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party deals in sale and repair of the shoes and the complainant has contacted the opposite party for the repair of one pair of shoes and accordingly the opposite party has received the same for repair purpose only. The opposite party always sold the goods by issuing the cash memos as the opposite party deals in branded products. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed only on the ground that the manufacturer of the shoes is not arrayed as opposite party. As per the allegations in the complaint, the shoes are of Liberty make and the manufacturer company has not been arrayed as party in the present complaint which is otherwise a necessary party. The complainant handed over the shoes for repair purpose. The opposite party is ready to repair the same subject to payment of repair charges. Thereafter the complainant never approached the opposite party for receiving back the shoes and rather filed the present false and frivolous complaint. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. According to the complainant he purchased a pair of shoes of leather of Liberty make from opposite party at the cost of Rs.2350/- but opposite party has denied this fact. The complainant has not produced any cash memo or bill regarding the purchase of the shoes in question from opposite party No.2. Counsel for the complainant contended that no cash memo or bill was issued to the opposite party at the time of sale of shoes to the complainant. In the complaint, the complainant has no where mentioned that at the time of purchase, the opposite party did not issue cash memo or bill. So in absence of any cash memo or bill regarding the purchase of shoes, it can not be held with certainty the complainant purchased the shoes in question from opposite party. According to opposite party, the complainant gave the shoes to it for repair purpose and according repair slip was issued. In absence of any cash memo or bill even the date of purchase can not be ascertained. The complainant has also not mentioned the warranty period, if any given by the opposite party at the time of alleged sale. In the circumstances of the case, even if its assumed for arguments sake that complainant has purchased the shoes in question from opposite party, it can not be held with certainty whether the defect in the shoes arose after the expiry of warranty period or before. In para 1 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that he purchased the pair of laces shoes of leather make Liberty from opposite party at the cost of Rs.2350/-. So in case there was any manufacturing defect in the shoes in question then its manufacturing company was also necessary party but the complainant has not impleaded it as a party. It is in the affidavit of Kulwinder Singh Grover Ex.OP/A of opposite party that opposite party deals in sale and repair of shoes and the complainant contacted the opposite party for repair of one pair of shoes and accordingly opposite party received the same for repair purposes only. On the slip Ex.C2 produced by the complainant repair slip is mentioned. So repair slip Ex.C2 produced by the complainant also tends to support the version of the opposite party that it received the pair of shoes for repair purpose only and issued the repair slip accordingly.

7. In view of above circumstance, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

18.06.2015 Member Member President