Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/999/2016

Ajay Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Woodland Store, M/s A to Z fashions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harjot S. Ahluwalia

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/999/2016
Date of Institution	:	07/11/2016
Date of Decision	:	06/09/2017

 

Ajay Singla s/o Sh. S.K. Singla r/o House No.5300/A, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh 160014.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Woodland Store, M/s A to Z Fashions Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. 80-82, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its MD.

2.     Woodland Store, M/s A to Z Fashions Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. 80-82, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

3.     Woodland Store, M/s A to Z Fashions Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. 80-82, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

4.     Aero Club Pvt. Ltd., 2168, Gurudwara Road, Opp. Post Office, New Delhi-110005 (Head Office of Woodland in India) through its M.D.

5.     Aero Club Pvt. Ltd., 2168, Gurudwara Road, Opp. Post Office, New Delhi-110005 (Head Office of Woodland in India) through its Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Jitender Bansal, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Harjot S. Ahluwalia, Counsel for complainant.
	:	Sh. Vikas Verma, Area Sales Executive for OPs.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 27.6.2016, the complainant purchased a pair of shoes from OPs 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs.4,048/-.  However, due to low quality material used in the sole of the shoes, the heel tip was damaged within 45 days of purchase. Accordingly, the complainant approached OP-3 with a complaint and request to replace the pair of shoes and repair slip No.79 was issued in which the date of delivery was given as 15.9.2016. When on 16.9.2016, the complainant went to OP-3 and showed the receipt, instead of replaced shoes, he was given the same shoes in repaired condition.  The complainant requested OP-3 to change the shoes with a new one as the same were used only for 3-4 occasions upon which OP-3 requested for some time. However, even after passing of one month, OPs failed to do anything. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs in their written statement have not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been averred that OP-3 sent the shoes in question to the headquarter for repairing and the same was fully repaired. The complainant went to the shop of OP-3 to collect the shoes and it gave the repaired shoes, but, he insisted to change the shoes with a new one.  It has been contended that the OPs offered a new pair of shoes to the complainant, but, he denied the proposal and demanded so much compensation amount from the OPs which was illegal and unjustified.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned proxy Counsel for the complainant and Area Sales Executive of the OPs. 
6.         The sole grouse of the complainant is that despite spending a huge amount of Rs.4,048/- for the purchase of a pair of shoes, the OPs did not provide proper services by replacing the same as the defect/damage to the heel tip came in existence within 45 days of its purchase.
7.         The stand taken by the OPs is that they offered a new pair of shoes when requested by the complainant, but, the complainant demanded a huge amount as compensation which was unjustified. 
8.         A perusal of Annexure C-1, the copy of the repair slip clearly shows that the complainant purchased the product in question for Rs.4,048/- on 27.6.2016 and the complainant reported the issue of the defect in the product within 45 days only on 22.8.2016.  This clearly points out towards poor quality of the product in question.  We are of the opinion that the complainant spent a huge amount of his hard earned money to purchase a pair of shoes after trusting the brand, but the act of the OPs in selling a poor quality product and later non-providing proper services points out towards their negligence and unfair trade practice which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To refund Rs.4,048/- to the complainant being the price of the defective goods.
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;
3. To pay Rs.1,500/- as costs of litigation. 

10.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/09/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member