Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/18/435

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Woodland Shoes - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bansal

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                              Complaint No.  RBT/CC/435/2018

   Instituted on:    16.11.2018

                                                               Decided on:     24.08.2022

Manoj Kumar son of Madan Lal R/O House No.232, Ward No.13, Backside Naveen Motors, Khalsa Colony, Samana.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Woodland Shoes (Aero Club) having its showroom at Bhupindera Road, Opp. Kaintal Petrol Pump, Patiala through its Sales Manager/Prop/authorized signatory.

2.     Woodland Shoes, Office Address 2168, Gurudwra Road, Opp. Post Office, New Delhi-110005 India through its MD/authorized signatory.

             ….Opposite parties

For the complainant    : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Adv.              

For the OPs               : None.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.        

1.             Arguments through video conferencing heard. This complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in view of orders of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide endorsement number 10226 of 26.11.2021.

2.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging  inter-alia that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he purchased one pair of shoes from OP number 1 on 8.7.2018 by paying the requisite amount of Rs.1998/- including discount and GST. It is further averred that after purchase of the shoes the complainant noticed that the shoes have left the pasting from the sole (ripped) and there is a hole between the sole and upper part of body of shoes.  Further case of complainant is that he visited OP number 1 on 20.7.2018 alongwith the defective shoes and on the same day the OP number 1 kept the shoes saying that it will be sent to the OP company for pasting and will be returned to the complainant after twenty days thereafter the complainant collected the shoes from the OP number 1 duly repaired.  It is further averred that after collecting the shoes the complainant used the same for eight days and the same problem again arose as such the complainant approached  OP number 1 on 27/28.08.2018 and the OP number 1 again stated that the shoes will be sent to the company for pasting problem, then the complainant requested the OP to replace the shoes will a new one, but the shoes were not replaced.  Thereafter the complainant sent so many emails to OP number 2 for replacement of the defective shoes, but nothing was done.  The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the Ops on 4.10.2018, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay him an amount of Rs.1998/- alongwith interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

3.             In reply filed by OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands. It is stated further that the complainant purchased the shoes on 8.7.2018 during sale period. It is admitted that the complainant approached the OPs with alleged defect of minor pasting problem and insisted for replacement of the shoes. It is stated further that the shoes were repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant.  It is stated further that the Ops are still ready to repair it because it is not a manufacturing defect.  On merits, the sale and purchase of the shoes is admitted for Rs.1998/-. It is stated further that the shoes had some minor stitching problem and that there is no manufacturing defect. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             The parties produced their respective evidence and closed thereafter.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant purchased one pair of shoes from OP number 1 on 8.7.2018 by paying the requisite amount of Rs.1998/- including discount and GST vide bill, copy of which on record is Ex.C-1.  Ex.C-2 is the copy of customer care slip dated 20.07.2018 showing that the complainant approached the customer care of the OPs for repair of the disputed shoes which had pasting problem. Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 are copies of emails and Ex.C-5 is the copy of legal notice and Ex.C-9 is the photograph of the disputed shoe showing crack in the lower part of the sole.  It is further contended that after purchase of the shoes the complainant noticed that the shoes have left the pasting from the sole (ripped) and there is a hole between the sole and upper part of body of shoes.  Further the learned counsel has contended that though he visited OP number 1 on 20.7.2018 alongwith the defective shoes and on the same day the OP number 1 kept the shoes saying that it will be sent to the OP company for pasting and will be returned to the complainant after twenty days thereafter the complainant collected the shoes from the OP number 1 duly repaired.  It is further contended that after collecting the shoes the complainant used the same for eight days and the same problem again arose as such the complainant approached  OP number 1 on 27/28.08.2018 and the OP number 1 again stated that the shoes will be sent to the company for pasting problem, then the complainant requested the OP to replace the shoes will a new one, but the shoes were not replaced. It is on the record that the shoes sold by the OPs to the complainant developed problem of pasting within a very short span of twenty days as is evident from the customer care slip. Moreover, the OP has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence to support the contention that the shoes are of good quality rather the sole of the shoes left the pasting within a period of twenty days, as such, we find that the shoes supplied by the OPs to the complainant were defective one and it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1998/-.   We further direct OPs to pay to the complainant Rs.1000/- as consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. The complainant is also directed to return the defective shoes to the Ops at the time of getting the payment. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

7.             This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

8.             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                August 24, 2022.