DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 423 of 10.11.2017

                                      Decided on:                    10.4.2019

Devan Verma Advocate age about 29 years son  of Sh.Arun Kumar Verma Advocate, R/o Ashok Vatika, Railway Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Woodland Aero Club, Patiala-3, Urban Estate, Shop at SCO 117, Urban Estate, Near Gopal Sweets, Patiala through  its authorized signatory/Manager.
2. Aero Club Private Limited, 2168, Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 through its Manager/authorized person.

Email: www.woodlandworldwide.com, Phone No.114767.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt.Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member                                   

ARGUED BY:              Sh.Daman, counsel for the complainant.

                                      Sh.Karanpreet Singh, authorized representative of the

                                      OPs.                              

 ORDER

                                    B.S.DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1. The complainant Devan Verma  (here-in-after referred to as complainant)  has filed this complaint against  Woodland Aero Club and Anr. (here-in-after referred to as OP/s), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (herein-in-after referred to as the Act).
2. Briefly, stated, the case of the complainant is that  he wanted to purchase a leather formal shoes for the office use and for that purpose, the complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 and the salesman/Manager of OP No.1 assured the complainant that their products are best in quality and service and they allured the complainant to purchase their product as they said there is no match of their quality in the market. The OP assured the complainant that their product is under the guarantee of six months.
3. It is alleged that on the assurances given by OP No.1, the complainant purchased the said product vide bill No.201703N188C00396 on dated 6.8.2017 and paid Rs.1886/- but the product was actually of Rs.1598.36p after the discount, but the OP over charges S.G.S.T. and C.G.S.T. @ 9% each on the product. Even as per the rules of the Govt., M.R.P. already included all taxes and they can not charge extra taxes.
4. It is also averred that after some days of the purchase of the said shoes, the shoes broken from the sole in few days. The complainant approached the OPs No.1&2 and complained regarding the same, but they linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant many times told the OPs that the product is under the guarantee but they never listen anything. After many requests made by the complainant, the OP No.1 got ready to receive back the said faulted shoes  and issued the receiving  slip No.31/PTL3rd dated 8.10.2017 and promised the complainant that his shoes will be replaced with new one within one week. After one week the complainant approached the OPs to receive his replaced shoes, but the OP No.1 always linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and told that the shoes are in possession of OP No.2 and till date the OPs have neither replaced the shoes nor refunded the amount to the complainant.
5. It is also alleged that the complainant has been mentally as well as physically harassed at the hands of the OPs. The OPs are deficient in their services and guilty of using misrepresentation, unfair trade practices.
6. It is further alleged that the OP No.1 by misrepresented the complainant and by using un fair trade practice, it charged S.G.S.T. and C.G.S.T. @ 9% each on the M.R.P. Even otherwise as the M.R.P. already includes all the taxes and the OP charged tax twice from the complainant.

By this complaint, the complainant has prayed to pay Rs.1886/- alongwith interest and the amount fraudulently charged under the garb of S.G.S.T and C.G.S.T and Rs.70,000/- as compensation for damages for causing undue mental tension, harassment, agony, pain and deficiency in service, alongwith misc. expenses of Rs.15000/-.Hence this complaint.

7. Upon notice the OPs appeared through their authorized representative and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply.
8. In the reply, it is contended in the preliminary submissions that the complaint is overwhelmingly a malafide one and has been filed with deliberate intention to fleece illegal monies from the OPs under the garb of deficiency of service.  It is stated that the complainant purchased one pair of shoes on 6.8.2017 for a sum of Rs.1886/- vide invoice No.201703N188C00398 from OP No.1.After some days, the complainant approached OP No.1 that the shoe have broken from the sole. The OP issued receiving slip No.31/PTL3rd dated 8.10.2017 to the complainant and asked him to pick the shoe within one week but the shoe was not in a repairable condition. The OPs, who are very particular about their goodwill showed a consumer friendly gesture and offered the complainant a new shoe or to settle the matter but the complainant was not ready to do so and is expecting exaggerated compensation from the OPs.
9. It is also averred in the preliminary submissions that the complaint under the Act is not maintainable as the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency of service attributable on the part of the OPs; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has concealed the material facts and has rather put forth a grossly misrepresented picture.
10. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased one pair of shoe on 6.8.2017 for a sum of Rs.1886/- vide invoice No.201703N188C00398 from OP No.1 but it is denied that the product was of Rs.1598.36p and the OPs charged SGST & CGST and  M.R.P.  includes all taxes. Further the OPs have reiterated the facts already narrated in the preliminary submissions and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
11. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
12. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA, copy of bill, Ex.C1, copy of repair slip, Ex.C2.
13. In order to rebut this evidence, OPs tendered into evidence their written version dated 12.3.2018 and closed their evidence.
14. Complainant has also submitted written arguments.
15. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the complainant and the representative of the OPs .
16. The ld. counsel for the complainant and the representative of the OPs, reiterated the averments as taken in their respective pleas as detailed above. The representative of the OPs also stated that in order to replace the shoes the OPs have tried their level best to find out the same type of shoes from other showrooms of the company but were  not available in anywhere, therefore, they were  not in a position to replace the shoes of same type / make.
17. We have gone through the record of the case, carefully and  considered the rival contentions.
18. Admittedly a pair of shoes was purchased by the complainant on 6.8.2017 vide bill No.201703N188C00396 dated 6.8.2017 from OP No.1. However, after few days of this purchase the shoes were damaged from the sole. The complainant approached the OP No.1 and lodged the complaint regarding the condition of the shoes but the OP No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Admittedly, thereafter the OP No.1 agreed to replace the faulty shoe and received the shoes and also issued a repair slip No.31/PTL 3^rd   dated 8.10.2017.OP No.1 also promised the complainant that the shoes will be replaced with new one within a week, but the OP No.1 did not replace the shoes or repair the same and the present complaint was filed by the complainant on 10.11.2017.
19. As has been discussed above, the pair of shoes was purchased on 6.8.2017 for Rs.1886/- vide bill, Ex.C1 and OP no.1 issued repair slip dated 8.10.2017 Ex.C2 to the complainant. In the reply the OPs have admitted that they will give him new shoes or to settle the matter but the complainant was not ready for the same. So it is admitted fact that the purchased pair of shoe was not of good quality which developed defects within few days of its purchased. It speaks volumes of the bad quality so much so it became unfit for use within few days of its purchase. It clearly amounts to the sale of defective goods. When the complainant had approached the OPs for the repair/replacement of the pair of shoes, the latter should have accepted the request of the complainant and not driven the complainant to file the present complaint, it could avoid unnecessary harassment and mental torture to him.
20. Thus allowing the complaint, we direct the OPs to refund the price i.e. Rs.1886/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of purchase, till payment with another sum of Rs.1000/-as compensation, inclusive of costs for harassment, inconvenience and mental torture, within a period of one month from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
21. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period, due to heavy pendency of complaints.
22. 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:10.4.2019

                                           B.S.DHALIWAL                  INDERJEET KAUR

                                           MEMBER                              MEMBER