Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/189/2018

Simranjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tommy Hilfiger Arvind Fashion Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pawitter Singh

14 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/189/2018
Date of Institution	:	27/04/2018
Date of Decision	:	14/03/2019

 

Simranjeet Singh S/o S. Kulwant Singh, R/o Dasmesh Nagar, VPO Jhanda Kalan, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa – 151507.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Tommy Hilfiger Arvind Fashion Pvt. Limited, Brunton Road, Craig Park Layout, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560025, through its Manager.

 

2.      Kapsons Retail Pvt. Limited, Shop No.11, Ground Floor, Plot No. 178-178A, Purv Marg, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002 (India), through its Manager.

 

3.      Brand Concepts Pvt. Limited, 140/2/2 Ring Road Square, Mushakhedi, Indore (M.P), through its Manager.

 

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Pawitter Singh, Adv. along with Sh. Paras Sharma, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Arjun Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	OPs No.2 & 3 ex-parte.

 

PER Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased one Blk Black/Tan Men’s Belt from Opposite Party No.2 on 05.01.2018. The said Belt was faulty as there was some issues with its pasting. Accordingly, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.2, on 25.02.2018, who, after inspection, retained the belt, and assured to replace the same within a week. It has been alleged that despite the product within the warranty period, the grievance of the Complainant was not redressed, irrespective of regular visits. Eventually, the Complainant was told to pay the discounted amount and get the new belt or to exchange the product later on sale. Aggrieved by this, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 10.03.2018 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the Complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, pleading that it is not the manufacturer of the Belt in question. The same was manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 and as such, answering Opposite Party was not liable in any manner for any defects that may occur with the product of Opposite Party No.3. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the reply by the Opposite Party No.1 have been controverted.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         It is evident from the written version of Opposite Party No.1 that the product in question was purchased by the Complainant for an amount of Rs.2,239/- after availing a discount of 30% on the actual price i.e. Rs.3,199/-. This fact is also fortified from the sale invoice (Annexure C-1). It is not disputed by the Opposite Party No.1 that the product got defected during the warranty period. Opposite Party No.1 has urged that the product in question was not available in stock, therefore, the Complainant was told to collect the amount paid by him towards the purchase of the article in question, which the Complainant did not collect. In nutshell, the Opposite Party No.1 has not disputed its liability for refund of the invoice price of the article in question i.e. Rs.2,239/-.
8.         Significantly, the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the Complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
9.         The sequence of above leads to an irresistible conclusion that the Opposite Parties were bound to refund the invoice price of the article in question to the Complainant, which they failed to do and thus indulged into unfair trade practice and are also guilty of rendering deficient services to the Complainant, which in turn certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. 
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

1. To pay Rs.2,239/- being the invoice price of the product to the Complainant;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

11.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.         The Complainant shall return the defective belt in question, to the Opposite Parties, after the compliance of the order.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
14/03/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”