DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member Date of Filing: 24/01/2023
CC/27/2023
Remya S.,
D/o. Sivakumaran P.
Unnachan House,
Thekkunnil, Kottekad (PO),
Palakkad – 678 732 - Complainant
(Party in Person)
Vs
Woodland Store,
Aero Club,
12/45-1 & – 12/45-6,
Diamond Tower,
CBE Road, Sulthanpet,
Chettitheruvu, Palakkad – 678 001 - Opposite party
(O.P. by Adv. K. Dhananjayan)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Brief complaint filed by the party appearing in person is that the complainant purchased a trekking shoe from the OP. But the shoe did not serve any purpose as held out by the staff of the O.P., ie. prevent slipping and she fell down and had to consult a doctor and take medicine for which she had to suffer expenses. She returned the shoes and it was only after a delay of more than two months that the opposite party expressed their willingness to reimburse 70% of the cost. This complaint is entitled to return of the entire cost of the shoes and this filed seeking return of balance amount and amount expended for treatment and cost and compensation.
- OP filed version stating that the complainant had used the shoes for 9 days and was returned only for the purpose that it did not serve trekking and not for the reason of manufacturing defects. Attempt of the complainant is to get a new shoe after returning the old shoe. Pleading of the O.P. remained silent on the aspect of refund of the cost.
- Pleadings and counter pleadings considered, the following issues were framed for adjudication:
- Whether the shoes purchased by the complainant did not serve the purpose of trekking?
- Whether there is deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of any of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
4. Any other reliefs?
4. (i) Evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A6. Marking of Ext. A5, was objected to as it could be marked only through the doctor who issued it. Marking of Ext. A6, was objected to as its description is different in Ext.A5.
We permit marking of the document, but restrict the complainant from using the same to show that the said treatment was necessitated as a result of the usage of the shoe, as a direct and proximate nexus between wearing the shoes, fall and treatment cannot be proved by these documents.
(ii) Even though OP filed proof affidavit along with an application, I.A. 39/2024, to reopen evidence and accept proof affidavit on the eve of the day the complaint was posted for orders, when the matter was called in the roll-call, there was no representation for OP. Hence IA 39/2024 was dismissed and proof affidavit was rejected.
Issue No.1
5. The 1st question that needs to be answered is whether the shoe purchased by the complainant was good for trekking. It is the case of the complainant that she purchased the shoes after being assured by the staff of the O.P., with regard to the grip of the shoes.
6. Ext.A1 is the invoice issued by the O.P. to the complainant. Ext.A1, on its reverse, contains the Terms and Conditions. The 4th condition (one that is applicable to foot wares and leather accessories) is that the shoes are not slip proof, but only slip resistant. No material is adduced by the OP to differentiate between these two terms. We went through dictionaries and googled the terms and both the terms were shown inter changeably. A layman’s understanding that we can to see after the research, is that when the shoe is slip proof, it can withstand slippery terrain to a 100%, whereas a slippery resistant shoe would address slippery terrain only to a lesser degree or extent.
7. But we are afraid that a common customer will not be able to ascertain the word differences while purchasing the shoe. The complainant might have understood the meaning the hard way, after using it for 9 days and after suffering a fall. Such a term/condition or warning made using complicated technical jargons will only serve to mislead or misguide a layman.
8. It would be relevant to note that the O.P. had not controverted the pleadings of the complainant that the staff of the O.P. had recommended her to use the shoe. Their only contention is that the complainant was satisfied with the shoes.
There was no need for the complainant to be dissatisfied at that juncture as the complainant was under the bonafide belief that the shoe would withstand slippery terrain. Even at the time of return, the complainant is not having a case that the shoe is suffering from manufacturing defect. Her only case is that the shoe did not prevent her from slipping, the same incident that the complainant wanted to prevent.
9. Thus, a reasonable presumption that we can arrive at is that the shoe is slippery, contrary to the holding out made by the staff of the O.P., thereby failing to serve the purpose for which it was purchased - trekking.
Issue No.2
10. The 2nd aspect is that the complainant returned the shoes on 18/11/2021. Ext.A2 is a communication from complainant to OP. Ext.A4 proves that the shoes was handed over to the OP on 18/11/2022. Till date of filing the complainant has not received the cost of the shoes.
11. Contention of the OP is that they cannot approve refund since the complainant has no case that the shoes are defective and that she had a chance to verify the shoes on the date of purchase itself.
We do not find any merit in this contention. Trying on a shoe in a show room will not reveal the actual nature of the shoe. Only when it is put to use for some time will the hidden or latent defects would come to light.
12. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. for not returning the cost within a reasonable period.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4
13. As already held supra in Issues 1 and 2, we have held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to reliefs.
14. This complaint is therefore disposed off as follows:
1. The O.P. is directed to take back the shoe and repay the cost with interest at the rate of 10% p.a., from the date of return, ie. 18/11/2022.
2. The O.P. is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. A cost of Rs. 5000/- is allowed.
4. The O.P. is directed to pay this amount to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this Order failing which the O.P. shall pay a solatium of Rs. 500/- p.m. or part thereof to the complainant from the date of Order till the date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 25th day of January, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of Invoice dated 9/11/2022
Ext.A2 – Copy of communication dated 16/12/2022
Ext.A3 - Copy of postal receipt
Ext.A4 - Copy customer care repair slip
Ext.A5 – Copy of doctors prescription dated 18/11/2022
Ext.A6 – Copy of cash bill dated 18/11/22 issued from Premier Medicals
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
