Allabakshu, S/o.Sattar, R/o.18-1-35,

Aged 34 years, Advocate at Nellore,

Ahmed Buildings, Old Post Office Road,

Nellore-3. ..… Complainant

Vs.
Proprietor,

Chinees Shoes,

Near @@@@hi Statue,

Trunk Road,

Nellore. ..…Opposite party.

ORDER

This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking for direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.650/-, pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- for mental agony and costs.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant purchased the Binutop shoes for Rs.650/- from the show room of the opposite party on 07-09-2007. After sporadic use the upper front portion of the shoes was faded and therefore the shoes acquired awkwardness.

The complainant informed the same to the opposite party in person and handover the shoes for replacing on 29-09-2007. The opposite party endorsed the same on the riverse side of the cash bill dated 07-09-2007 as “Taken for Repair” . After receiving a call from the opposite party the complainant went to the show room of the opposite party and saw the shoes but they were not in satisfactory condition. Therefore he refused to take the shoes. Selling of inferior quality of shoes amounts to adopting unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

3. The opposite party filed the counter stating in brief as follows:

He admitted the allegations with regard to the purchase of shoes for Rs.650/- by the complainant and also the demand made by the complainant for the replacement of the shoes. The opposite party stated that the complainant cannot seek the replacement of the shoes as he did not give any guarantee.

It is further stated that the complainant should contact the agency / producer and if he accepts for the replacement the shoes will be replaced. As the dealer refused to replace the shoes, they cannot be replaced. It is clearly mentioned in the bill that the shoes were taken for repairs. The opposite party further stated that though he is not liable to replace the shoes yet he repaired the shoes and informed the complainant to take back the shoes but he refused. There is no negligence in his service and hence the complaint against him is liable to be dismissed.

4. The points for consideration are:

1) Whether there is deficiency in the service of the opposite party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

3) To what relief is the complainant entitled?

5. The complainant filed his affidavit and produced the documents, which are marked as Exs.A1 to A4. The opposite party filed his affidavit but he did not produce any documents.

6. POINT No.1 : The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased shoes for Rs.650/- from the opposite party and after using the same for some days he handedover shoes to the opposite party as the upper front portion of the shoes was faded. The dispute is with regard to the replacement of the shoes. According to the opposite party he is not liable to replace the shoes and if at all the shoes are to be replaced it should be made by the agency/dealer and not by him. Ex.A1 is the bill for purchase of the shoes by the complainant from the opposite party.


On the reverse of Ex.A1 there is an endorsement which says that the shoes were taken for repairs by the opposite party. In Ex.A1 it is clearly mentioned as “No Guarantee”. The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the opposite party did not give guarantee and hence he is not liable to replace the shoes with new shoes or refund the cost of the shoes. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party. If there was no guarantee the opposite party should not have received the shoes for repairs.

The opposite party had received the shoes for repairs. The very fact that the opposite party received the shoes for repairs would clearly go to show that there was some understanding between the opposite party and the complainant with regard to the durability of the shoes. Since the opposite party failed to repair the shoes to the satisfaction of the complainant we are of the view that there is deficiency in the service of the opposite party. Hence we answer this point in favour of the complainant.

7. POINT NO.2: The complainant is seeking the refund of the costs of the shoes. In view of our finding on POINT NO.1 we hold that the opposite party is liable to refund the cost of the shoes. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.3,000/- for mental agony. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount towards compensation. Regarding the costs we are of the view that Rs.500/- would be the reasonable costs. Hence we answer this point accordingly.

8. TO WHAT RELIEF: IN THE RESULT, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs.650/-(Rupees six hundred and fifty only) which is the cost of the shoes and also pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.