DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 216 of 2.6.2017

                                      Decided on:                    15.3.2018

Jatinder Bansal S/o Sh.Ram Baabu , R/o Gobind Bagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Liberty Walk ‘N’ Wear, Adalat Bazar, Top Khana More, Opposite O.B.C.Bank, Patiala through its owner.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      None for the complainant.

                                      Sh.Narinder Pal Singh Manager, for opposite party No.2

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one pair of shoes of ‘Red Wood’ company (cithos 2-6512) from the OP for a sum of Rs.2600/- on 22.11.2016 which was under two years warranty as was written by the OP on the invoice. It is averred that after two months of the said purchase, the shoes got damaged/defective and the complainant approached the OP who got the shoes repaired. But again the pair of shoes got damaged, the OP told the complainant that it will get the shoes repaired but the complainant demanded the replacement of the shoes. The complainant visited the OP time and again and in the end the OP told the complainant that it would neither repair nor replace the pair of shoes. As the shoes got damaged/defective during the warranty period and by not replacing the same the OP has committed deficiency in service. It is further averred that the complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OP and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, Manager of the OP appeared and filed its reply to the complaint. In its reply, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the said pair of shoes from the OP. It is submitted by the OP that no guarantee was given by it. It has attached the duplicate copy of the bill. It is further submitted that after wearing the shoes for five months the complainant brought the shoes to the shop of the OP in the month of May,2017 and started misbehaving and started demanding replacement of the shoes. The Manager of the section, Mr .Ranju Bhargav explained to the complainant that there was no manufacturing defect in the shoes, neither the sole nor the upper had cracked and told the complainant to take back the shoes. But the complainant left the pair of shoes at the shop of the OP and filed the present complaint. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his own affidavit alongwith bill Ex.C1 and closed his evidence.
4. Sh.Narinder Pal Singh, Manager of the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his own affidavit alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence of the OP.
5. We have heard the Manager of the OP, gone through the written arguments filed by the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Ex.C1 is the photocopy of the invoice dated 22.11.2016, placed on record by the complainant on which ‘two years’ is written  which refers to warranty. Whereas as  the OP has placed on record, copy of the cash memo dated 22.11.2016, on which nothing has been written regarding ‘warranty’
7. The complainant has not been appearing in the court since the last six dates. even today he failed to appear to argue his case, Whereas the OP appeared and argued its case. It produced the pair of shoes in the court, wherein no defect was seen. The shoes were in fine condition even after wearing the same for a period of five months. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OP. The complainant has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to prove that the pair of shoes got defective/damages.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to collect the pair of shoes from the OP within a period of 30 days on receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 15.3.2018               

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER