T. Ravi Shankar, H/o K. Venkateswara Rao, Door No.61-9/2-22, Kalanagar, Vijayawada – 13.

…… Complainant.


vs

Harish (Incharge), Destiny, Door No.39-1-11, Labbipet, M.G. Road, Beside Dimple Bar, Vijayawada – 10.

…. Opposite party.

ORDER



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

That the complainant purchased a pair of chappals from the opposite party by paying consideration of Rs.390/- on guarantee given by the opposite party. In due course the chappals gave trouble so, he approached the opposite party who repaired it and there after also chappals gave trouble and infact it were broken so, the complainant approached the opposite party but of no avail and so he got issued legal notice but of no avail hence, the complaint.

2. The opposite party filed version admitting the sale of chappals but contended that the chappals were used roughly and repairs were effected even after use of chappals for about three months yet the complainant came again with false allegations so, this opposite party offered to pay half of the sale consideration but the complainant refused and insisted for return of entire amount that to after use of the chappals nearly four months and then filed this complaint with false and untenable allegations for wrongful gain and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3. On behalf of the complainant the complainant himself filed an affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the opposite party Sri Harish filed an affidavit and no documents are marked.

4. Heard both the counsel.

5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:

I) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

II) Whether the opposite party adopted any unfair trade practice in selling the chappals in dispute?

III) To what relief the complainant is entitled?

6. Point Nos.1 and 2: Before adverting to rival contentions there is no dispute that the complainant purchased chappals for Rs.390/- vide Ex.A1 further, there is no dispute that the complainant used those chappals for about three months and then approached the opposite party for repair and the opposite party got it repaired yet, not satisfied with it the complainant got issued legal notice vide Ex.A2 and the same was received by the opposite party and the opposite party addressed a letter to the complainant to come for talks vide Ex.A4 but the complainant failed to go to the shop as per the version of the opposite party and insisted for refund of the entire amount further, the material on hand discloses that the complainant used the chappals for nearly four months and when questioned the same the complainant requested the Forum to direct the opposite party to repair the chappals and the same was agreed by the opposite party so, no need to discuss further, why because, the complainant asked for repair of the chappals while submitting arguments and the opposite party admitted to repair so, in the circumstances the offer and acceptance of the parties is acceptable and accordingly these points are answered.

7. Point No.3: In the result the opposite party is hereby directed to take back the chappals deposited before this Forum and get it repaired by fixing new sole under the chappals and to handover the chappals within 15 days to the complainant from the date of this order and in the circumstances of the case no order as to costs and other reliefs claimed by the complainant are rejected and with the above observation this complaint is disposed of.