DATE OF FILING :26/09/17 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27th day of February 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO. 199/2017

Between

Complainant       :   Alan Thomas,

                                                                              Kuttichirayil House,

                                                                              Thadiyampadu P.O.,

                                                                               Idukki.

(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)

         And

Opposite Party                                          : The Manager,

                                                                       Woodland Shoes,

                                                                        Thodupuzha P.O.,

                                                                        Pala Road, Idukki. 

         

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

  The case of the complainant is that,  

 

           Complainant purchased a shoe from opposite party shop for an amount of Rs.3895/- on 15/04/17.  After purchasing the shoes, it got damaged within a week. So on 01/05/17, the complainant approached the opposite party shop and intimated the matter.  But the opposite party denied to replace it or repay its purchase price.  Thereafter the complainant approached consumer vigilance Forum, Idukki, even though the secretary intervened the matter, opposite party was not turned up to solve the issue.  In the meantime the complainant along with his father approached the opposite party for replacing the damaged shoe.   Complainant is residing 60Km away from the opposite party shop and due to this he suffered a lot of mental and financial hardships.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair  trade practice complainant filed this petition against the opposite party and prayed for getting the purchase price of shoe  along with cost and compensation.

 

 

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....2)

-2-

        Upon notice opposite party entered appearance  and filed detailed reply version.  In their version opposite party contented that, while approaching them the complainant handed over the shoe to them and the opposite party send it for repair, but it return with remarks very poor condition already sharp out not repairable, return to shop.  Thereafter the father of the complainant went to shop to collect the damaged shoe, then the opposite party told him that the condition of the shoe is very poor and opposite party offered him for replacement of a new shoe.  At that time the complainant denied the offer and he demanded a huge amount by way of compensation.  The complainant seeking the price of the shoe along with exaggerated compensation in lieu of mental pain, loss of time and money and actually intending to make handsome capital.  This intention of the complainant is ill motivated and malafide and cannot be allowable.

 

        From the part of the complainant the purchase bill and copy of complaint lodged before the consumer vigilance counsel are produced and marked as Ext.P1  and Ext.P2. No oral evidence adduced from the side of the opposite party.  No evidence adduced.

 

       Heard both sides,

 

     The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Points:-We have considered the argument advanced by both the parties and have gone through the records.  The sale of the shoe and its damages are admitted by the opposite party and they offered the complainant that they are ready to replace it, since it is not repairable.  From the copy of the petition lodged by the complainant before the consumer vigilance Forum, we can see that the consumer approached the opposite party so many times at last they  approached the vigilance counsel for redress this grievance.  This shows that, the complainant took much pain in this matter and as a last resort he approached the Forum.  It is also to be noted that he is residing far away from the opposite party  shop, and normally he spent much more money  for conveyance  alone.   Definitely  he  had  suffered   additional   expenses  in  this

 

                                                                                                                          (Cont....3)

-3-

matter, and the opposite party   can solve this issue in its primary stage itself, without forcing him to approach this forum.

 

         On the basis of the above discussion the Forum is of a considered view that the act of the opposite party caused much inconvenience for the complainant and thereby he suffered financial loss and it is to be compensated by the opposite party.  Hence the Forum allowed this complaint and directed the opposite party to replace the shoe with a new one and directed them to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation cost for the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  27th day of  February, 2018.

 

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                            SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                 SRI. BENNY. K.  (MEMBER)

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            - Copy of repair slip

Ext.P2            - Copy of complaint filing – damage of shoes

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

                 Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT