Haryana

Kurukshetra

150/2018

Narender pAnchal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Woodland Showroom - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

24 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.150 of 2018.

Date of instt.: 18.07.2018.

                                                                        Date of Decision:24.09.2018.

Narender Panchal son of Sh. Devi Ram, resident of near Civil Hospital, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra.

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

1. Woodland Showroom, Vishavkarma Mandir Market, Sector-17, Kurukshetra, through its Prop.
2. Head Office, Woodland Shoes, 2137, Gali No.60, Nalwala, Block 37J, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, through its Managing Director.

 

..………OPs.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                       Ms. Neelam, Member.

                       Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

 

Present :       Complainant in person.

                       OPs already exparte.

                                         

ORDER

 

            This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant-Narender against Woodland Showroom and another, the opposite parties.

2.        Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a pair of shoes for a sum of Rs.2915/- from the Ops on 10.12.2015 vide receipt No.80.  It is alleged that after 7-8 months of its purchase, the soul of said shows was broken.  The complainant approached the Ops and deposited the said shoes with the Ops on 13.09.2016 and the complainant requested the Ops several times to repair or replace the said defective shows but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay a sum of Rs.2915/- alongwith interest or to replace the defective shows with the new one and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled may also be granted.   

3.             Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 29.08.2018.

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of e-mails as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, copy of repair bill as Ex.C4 and copy of aadhar card, Ex.C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.   

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased a pair of shoes from the Ops on 10.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.2915/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that the soul of said shows was broken within the guarantee/warranty period and the complainant deposited the said shoes with the Op No.1 on 13.09.2016, which is clear from repair slip No.80, Ex.C4.  From the said repair slip, Ex.C4, it is clear that the complaints of “pasting” and “stitching” are shown and in the column of condition, “poor” is mentioned.  The complainant requested the Ops several times to repair or replace the defective shoes but the Ops did not do so.  The complainant also sent three e-mails i.e. dt. 02.06.2017, Ex.C1, 20.07.2017, Ex.C2 and 17.07.2018, Ex.C3 but the Ops neither replied the said e-mails nor took any action regarding repairing or replacing the defective shoes.   To prove his case, the complainant has testified all the facts in the affidavit, Ex.CW1/A so set out by him in the complaint.  Besides the said affidavit, the complainant has also tendered into evidence copy of above-mentioned e-mails as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops were proceeded against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective shoes of the complainant with the new one of the same value and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the cost of litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its payment.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:24.09.2018.  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.