4.8.08<br /> Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member<br /> This complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.500/- with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.350/-.<br /> The complainant’s contention is as follows: The complainant had purchased aero soft footwear from the opposite party’s shop for an amount of Rs.500/- on 2.10.07 which has a warranty of 6 months. Opposite party had sold the footwear to the complainant with a condition that the same will be replaced, if it has any damage within 6 months. But after one month from the date of purchase, there was seen some deep scratches. Thereafter two months some small iron rodes were seen inside these deep scratches which caused some wounds upon the foot of the complainant. The same were brought into the notice of the opposite party and asked to replace the footwear. But instead of replacing the footwear the opposite party abused the complainant in front of so many persons. So this is an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. So he had issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party. But he had replied it with unnecessary averments. Hence this complaint.<br /> On receiving the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and he had appeared before this Forum in person and expressed his willingness to settle the matter. But subsequently he became absent and hence he was called absent and set exparte. <br /> On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Relief and cost?<br /> The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3.<br /> Issue Nos.1 & 2<br /> The complainant in his chief examination deposed that he had purchased an aero soft footwear from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.550/- and Ext.A1 is the bill of purchase. From these it is very clear that the complainant had purchased a footwear from the opposite party for Rs.550/- and after deduction of Rs.50/- he had paid Rs.500/- towards the value of the footwear. From the witness box the complainant showed that an iron rode is projecting outside from the deep scratches of the footwear. This shows that the footwear is defective. Ext.A2 and A3 are the copy of the lawyer notice and reply notice. These documents along with the deposition of PW1 shows that the service of the opposite party is deficient and hence the complainant is entitled to get the value of footwear ie.Rs.500/- along with Rs.250/- being the cost of this proceedings. These issues are answered partly in favour of the complainant.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to refund Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) being the value of foot wear along with cost of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the consumer protection Act. <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.Bill dt.2.10.07 issued byOP<br /> A2.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP<br /> A3.Reply notice<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party<br /> Nil<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1.Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party<br /> Nil<br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur <br />