Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/788/2015

Sative Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZARA - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/788/2015
Date of Institution	:	26/11/2015
Date of Decision	:	05/05/2016

 

Sative Chauhan s/o Sh. Satpal Chauhan, Sative Niwas, Sangti, Sanjauli, Shimla, H.P.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Zara Head office, Building 9-A, 15^th Floor, DLF Phase 3, Gurgaon 122002, Haryana through its Manager.

2.     Zara, Plot No.178, Shop No.26-29, Ground Floor, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Elante Mall, Chandigarh, 160002 through its Manager.

3.     Uday Pathania, Store Manager, Zara, Plot No.178, Shop No.26-29, Ground Floor, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase I, Elante Mall, Chandigarh 160002.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Gurmukh Singh, Counsel for OPs.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Sative Chauhan, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Zara and others,  Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he purchased a black faux leather jacket of the OPs for Rs.6,000/-. The said jacket was not used since winter months and was stored with due care in the cupboard with other jackets. According to the complainant, when he checked the jacket, it showed bubbling in leather material.  On 3^rd August (2015?), the complainant visited the store and reported the issue to ZARA employee who told to mail the problem to customer care.  The customer care declared of having investigated the problem through an email and claimed that the fault was of the complainant. After 15 days, the complainant made another visit and this time the ZARA employee told him to call the customer care number, but, the calls went unanswered. The complainant has averred that he made a third and last visit to the store where OP-3 shrugged off his issue and alleged that he did not store the jacket properly. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written reply, OPs have not disputed the factual matrix of the case.  It has been averred that the complainant was politely conveyed that the alleged bubbles on the black faux leather jacket might be either a result of mishandling or carelessness on his part or due to fungus or termite attack on the garment.  It has been contended that in reply to the notice dated 30.9.2015, it was conveyed that as per ZARA refund policy, the product is refunded/ exchanged within one month of purchase date and in the present case the product was purchased on 24.9.2014 whereas the complainant visited the store after nearly 11 months of using and storing the same.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated his own.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OPs.
6.         It is evident from the bill that the complainant purchased one black faux leather jacket of the OPs for a consideration of Rs.6,000/- vide cash memo dated 24.9.2014. As per the case of the complainant, the jacket was stored with due care in the cupboard with other jackets, but, when it was checked after some time, it showed bubbling in the leather material. The allegation of the complainant is that despite various communication with the OPs, he could not get the solution to the problem reported in the product in question.  Even a legal notice was served to the OPs on 15.9.2015 before filing the complaint.
7.         The stand taken by the OPs is that the problem reported in the leather jacket might be either a result of mishandling or carelessness on the part of the complainant or due to the fungus or termite attack on the apparel.  It has been further contended that as per their refund policy, the product is refunded/exchanged only within one month of its purchase, but, the complainant reported the problem nearly after 11 months of the purchase.
8.         We have gone through the documents on record.  In the reply of the OPs dated 30.9.2015 to the legal notice of the complainant, annexed at page 13 of the paper book, it is clearly mentioned in para 1 that ‘After much investigation also, we have arrived at the conclusion that it was not a product line defect and there were no quality issues, so our refund policy will hold good’ meaning thereby some investigation was conducted by the OPs with regard to the quality of the product.  However, surprisingly, the OPs have not annexed any such report or subsequent evidence with regard to the steps taken in the above mentioned investigation to check the quality issue in the disputed product. Undoubtedly, the company has the policy of refund or replacement within 30 days, but, we are of the opinion that a person who spent a huge amount of Rs.6,000/- on a single jacket with trust on the brand, expects  under genuine hope and belief that for initial period of at least 3-4 years there would be no occasion for defect; but, the same did not prove true in the present case. We are of the view that if the world’s big fashion retailers like the OPs will treat their customers in this manner by selling quality products with questionable material and providing no support to the customers during the use of such products, it will result in injustice to such customers. As the OPs have charged consideration from the complainant and, therefore, they are equally liable for the durability of the product as a whole. Hence, the act of the OPs in selling a substandard product with exploitive 30 days refund policy, points out towards their being deficient in service and their involvement in unfair trade practice.
9.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under :-

(i)     To refund the invoice price of the defective product in question i.e. Rs.6,000/- to the complainant after taking back the defective one from him.

(ii)    To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;

(iii)   To pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation. 

10.         This order be complied with by the OPs within one month 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, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint 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/-
05/05/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member