Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/225/2012

ANIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

WOODLAND SHOES - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/225/2012
 
1. ANIL KUMAR
H. NO. 398 OM VIHAR PHASE 2A UTTAM NAGAR ,N D 59
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. WOODLAND SHOES
SHOP AERO CLUB KAROL BAGH N D
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAPOOR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5th  FLOOR.

KASHMERE GATE DELHI.

No. DF / Central/ 2015

 

Consumer Complaint  No

:

CC 225/2012

Date  of  Institution 

:

 
   

 

             

 

 

Anil Kumar Chugh

H.No. 398

Om Vihar Phase 2A Uttam Nagar New Delhi-110059

                                                                                         ..........Complainant

Versus

Woodland Shoes, Shop Aero Club, Karol Bagh

New Delhi-110001                  ..........Respondent/OP

BEFORE

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

NUPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

V. K. DABAS, MEMBER

ORDER

Per Ms NUPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

   

 

The complainant had purchased a pair of shoes for a sum of Rs. 1,675/- vide cash memo number 4694 dated 25/7/2012 from the OP.  It is alleged by the complainant that the OP had given him a defective pair

Page 1. Order CC 255/2012

 

of shoes. On 27/7/2012 , the complainant approached OP and asked for the replacement of the shoes.  It is further alleged by the complainant that in the name of replacement , the OP returned the old pair  of shoes to him. However, somehoww the  complainant wore the shoes, but as soon as he wore the  shoes, he suffered a wound on his L+ Leg (foot) due to the defective shoes.  The complainant again approached the OP for the replacement of the shoes but all in vain.  Finally, the complainant deposited his shoes with woodland customer care center on 2.8.2012  vide repair slip no. 276.  The complainant had, therefore, approached this forum for redressal of his grievance and had prayed for the replacement of the pair of shoes along with compensation and cost of litigation. 

    The complaint has been contested by the OP. OP has filed a written statement wherein it has claimed that the complainant had not approached the forum with clean hands and had come with malafide intentions.  The OP has denied any deficiency in service on its part and had prayed for dismissal of the complaint. It is alleged by the OP that the complainant has not proved any defect on the part of the OP company and not produced any relevant evidence on record to justify his claim.

Page 2. Order CC 255/2012

 

    The complainant has filed rejoinder to reiterate the facts was pleaded in the complaint.

    The complainant has filed his evidence by way of his affidavit.  He has relied upon the documents as annexed with his complaint.

    Sh. Satish Singh Yadav , Legal Executive of the oP has filed his affidavit. 

    We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

    The complainant has placed on record a copy of the repair slip issued by the Woodland Customer Care dated 2/8/2012 vide slip number 276.  The learned counsel for the OP has contended that the complainant had not placed  on record, the cash memo of the purchase of the shoes or its particulars. It had further contended that the complainant had not suffered any wound due to the  pair of shoes.

    We have considered the above contention but we have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the same.  The repair slip placed on record by the complainant itself describes the purchase details of the shoes, and the complaint/ defect on the shoes.

    The complainant has also placed on record the prescription of Mahindra Hospital dated 5.8.2012 which clearly shows that due to defective shoes the complainant suffered wound on his L+ Leg (foot).

Page 3. Order CC 255/2012

 

    We, therefore, hold OP liable for rendering deficiency in services to the complainant and direct it as under:

  1. Replace the pair of shoes.
  2. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental suffering pain and agony.
  3. To pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation.

 

 

   The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant

 

may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

    Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. 

    File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................

 

(NUPUR CHANDNA)    (DR.V.K.DABAS)    (RAKESH KAPOOR)

     MEMBER             MEMBER                PRESIDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAPOOR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.