| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 87 of 22-04-2019 Decided on : 16-11-2021 Sourabh Garg aged about 35 years S/o Sh. Prem Kumar Garg R/o H. No. 19482, Street No. 0B, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Basic Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5707, Cloth Market Mall Road, Bathinda, Punjab through its authorized person. Reebok India Company (Head Office), 7th Floor, Unitech Commercial Tower-2, Sector 45, Gurgaon 122003, Block-B, Green Wood City through its authorised person.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Ram Manohar, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. V K Sharma, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Sourabh Garg (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Basic Clothing Pvt. Ltd., & another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a pair of Reebok shoes bearing article No. CN7860 from opposite party No. 1 vide Invoice No. S1367-T1-SC2598-FY219 dated 26-1-2019 for consideration of Rs. 1559/- for his personal use. It is alleged that the upper cloth lining near tongue as well as net of the Toe cap of the said shoes wore out within 10 days of the purchase. The condition of the shoes looks like Ripped/Ragged. It is further alleged that complainant contacted opposite party No. 1 in person as well as customer care of opposite party No. 2 vide several e-mails requesting them to replace the said pair of shoes but all in vain. The opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant to purchase same model of shoes by paying extra money which is totally against law and principles of natural justice. The opposite party No.1 with the sole purpose of wrongful gaining and with malafide intention to cheat the complainant, sold defective pair of shoe to complainant. The possibility of selling duplicate products by opposite party No.1 resembling those of products manufactured by opposite party No. 2 also cannot be ruled out as normally the shoe of such a company i.e. opposite party No. 2 does not wore out in such a short time. It is further alleged that on 16-3-2019, complainant again visited opposite party No.1 and requested him either to refund the invoice amount or to replace the defective shoe with the new one without charging extra amount but opposite party No.1 remained adamant against both the requests of complainant and used derogatory language against him and tarnished his respect. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the opposite parties but to no effect. The complainant also alleged that due to fraudulent act of the opposite parties, complainant has suffered financial loss as well as suffered physically and mentally harassed by visiting the shop of opposite party No.1 again and again, as such he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. There is gross deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties as it was the duty of the opposite parties to sell good quality products and in case of defective products, either to replace it with new one or to refund the entire invoice amount, but both the opposite parties failed to do so. In this way, the opposite parties have also adopted unfair trade practice. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the said defective shoes with new one or refund its price i.e. Rs.1559/- and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, the opposite parties put an appearance through counsel but failed to file written version and produce documents within statutory and extended period. Therefore, the right of opposite parties to file written version and produce documents was closed by order. In support of his version, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of Invoice (Ex. C-1), Pair of Shoes (Ex. C-2), photocopies of e-mail (Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6), photocopy of legal notices and postal receipts (Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-10), affidavit of complainant dated 18-4-2019 (Ex. C-11) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. A perusal of copy of Invoice bearing No. S1367-T1SC 2589-Fy19 (Ex. C-1) reveals that on 26-1-2019 complainant purchased a pair of shoes of Reebok company, i.e manufactured by opposite party No. 2, from opposite party No. 1 and paid Rs. 1559/- in cash to opposite party No. 1. Ex. C-3 is copy of e-mail sent by complainant to customer care of opposite party No. 2 on 6-3-2019 wherein he has mentioned that shoes in question has been damaged within 10 days but opposite party No. 1 is demanding money to replace the same. Ex. C-4 is the copy of reply of customer care of opposite party No. 2 sent in reply to e-mail of complainant whereby they apoligised for inconvenience and asked complaint to send scanned copy of original invoice and snapshot of the claim product label and vide e-mail dated 11-3-2019 (Ex. C-5) complainant sent the required documents. Customer Care of opposite party No. 2 vide e-mail dated 11-3-2019 approved the claim of the complainant and asked him to claim the replacement from respective store. The submission of complainant is that despite his repeated requests opposite party No. 1 neither replaced defective shoes nor refunded price of shoes, then he got issued legal notice dated 20-3-2019 (Ex. C-8) but then also nothing was done by opposite parties. A perusal of file reveals that opposite parties despite providing various opportunities by this Commission failed to file version and tender documents. This act of the opposite parties shows that opposite parties have nothing to say meaning thereby that they have admitted their fault. The opposite parties failed to rebut the evidence of complaint. This Commission also inspected the shoes in question, tendered in evidence by complainant as Ex. C-2, and found that shoes appears to be old and almost in ragged condition. The complainant purchased the shoes in question on 26-1-2019 and since the shoes became useless after few days of purchase, he started visiting opposite party No. 1 and sending mails to opposite party No. 2 to redress his grievance. The customer care of opposite party No. 2 responded to the mails sent by complainant and asked him to approach opposite party No. 1 for replacement/refund, but opposite party No. 1 remained adamant and did nothing in this regard. The opposite parties did not even do the needful even after issuance of legal notice. Opposite party No. 1 even failed to file written version to contest the complaint, when complainant knocked the door of this Commission under forced circumstances to get his grievance redressed. Thus, there is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties in selling defective/poor quality product to consumer/complaiant and in not replacing the same or refunding its price when he approached them. Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed with cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are further directed to refund the price of shoes in question i.e. Rs. 1559/- to complaint. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 08-11-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
