DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C.No. 233 of 24.8.2023

Decided on : 31-10-2023

Rajinder Singh aged about 46 year S/o Vijay Singh Chahal R/o House No.2510, Mehna Mohalla, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Kapsons Bathinda Having its Office Opposite Mittal Mall Near Sagar Rattan Goniana Road, Bathinda, through its Authorized Person/Competent Person.

    

2. Tommy Hilfiger Store C/o Kapsons Bathinda Having its Office opposite Mittal Mall Near Sagar Rattan Goniana Road, Bathinda through its Authorized Person/Competent Person.

    

3. Tommy Hilfiger Store Having its Registered Office 11, Russell Street, Kolkata West Bengal Pin Code 700071, through its Authorized Person/Competent Person. (Deleted)

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Sh.R.L Mittal, President

Sh.Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh.Baljeet Singh, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Opposite parties No.1 and 2 Ex-parte.

Opposite party No.3 deleted.

ORDER

R.L Mittal, President

1. The complainant Rajinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Kapsons Bathinda and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite parties are well known in the field of marketing qua various kind of articles under the name and style of Tommy Hilfiger and have also their branch office at Bathinda and the same is a Public Utility Service.

3. It is alleged that on 18.7.2022, the complainant purchased one belt of of Tommy Hilfiger, Shirt and T-Shirt vide invoice No.SLB 12810638 from opposite party No.1. The Belt TOMMY HILFIGER (INR 3299) Size : M Color : Black/Tan was purchased by him by paying : Net Amt. :INR 3299/- Disc. Amt. INR 990 Final Amt: INR 2309/-.

4. It is further alleged that at the time of sale of the product, opposite party No.1 has given full assurance and promised that it would replace the product if there would be any defect in the product. Surprisingly, the colour of the Belt's buckle started degrading day by day. On 4.2.2023, the complainant informed opposite party No.1 regarding the defect in the product and requested it to do the needful or to replace the belt with new one.

5. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant several times approached and visited opposite parties offices at Bathinda and requested them to replace the belt with new one, but they instead of replacing the belt, vide SMS dated 9.2.2023 stated that defective article approval and disposal is lying with the concerned brand and brand has disapproved that article exchange. So they cannot exchange the same.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund of Rs.2309/- being the value of the belt and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and botheration and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

6. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it.

7. In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant, the name of opposite party No.3 was deleted from the array of opposite parties vide order dated 31.10.2023.

8. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 24-8-2023 (Ex.C9) and documents, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C8).

9. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the file carefully.

10. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in his averments as detailed above.

11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

12. The case of the complainant is that on 18.7.2022, he had purchased one belt of Tommy Hilfiger for Rs.2309/- vide bill, (Ex.C1). The colour of the belt-buckle started degrading. The complainant informed the opposite party No.1 regarding the defect in the product, but to no avail as opposite parties disapproved the article exchange. Tommy Hilfiger is a world renowned company and customer pays much more amount for their product than companies of other brand and it is not expected that the products of Tommy Hilfiger start degrading within six months. It was the duty of opposite parties to exchange the belt with new one, but they have failed to provide proper assistantance and services to complainant. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

    Moreover opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not come forward to constest the complaint of the complainant. The evidence of the complainant is unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.

13. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to refund an amount Rs.2309/- i.e. price of the defective belt with interest of 9% per annum from date of purchase till realization.

14. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    31-10-2023

    1. (R.L Mittal)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member