State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shree Leather, vs Chanda Kumari, on 16 July, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 16-07-2008 Appeal No. FA 08/629 (Arising out of Order dated 03-02-2008 passed by the District Forum ( New Delhi), K.G. Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. OC/847/07) Shree Leather, 16A, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Through Its Authorized Official Mr. Shantanu Biswas. . . . Appellant Versus Ms. Chanda Kumari, C/o. Gyan Gaurav, R/o. House No. 135, Mohammadpur, New Delhi 110066. . . . Respondent CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, President 1.
Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. On having sold a pair of highly defective sandals costing Rs. 329/- and forcing the respondent to seek remedy of refund of the cost Rs. 329/- and compensation before the District Forum, the District Forum has vide impugned Order dated 03-02-2008, directed the appellant to take back the old sandals and return its price and pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- cost of litigation to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned order in brief were that she had purchased a pair of sandals costing Rs. 329/- on 3rd July, 2007 from the showroom of the appellant. The next day of its purchase she noticed a number of cracks on its strips and even the colour of the polish had faded. The same were handed over to the appellant for repair/replacement as the same was under
warranty of six months. The respondent made several visits to the showroom of the appellant but on 08-08-2007 when she went again to collect the same the appellant abused the respondent and flung the sandals towards the respondent which hit her on the head.
3. In its defence the appellant, while admitting the purchase of the sandals by the respondent, denied any deficiency in service on its part and contended that the sandals were put to very rough use without due care from the date of purchase. Appellant also denied the allegation of the respondent that she had to visit the showroom of the appellant several times. It is averred that the sandals were repaired on 26th July, 2007 with due date of delivery as 08-08-2007 but instead of collecting the same the respondent moved the complaint before the District Forum.
4. The impugned order has been assailed through this appeal mainly on the premise of difference in the version of the complainant made in the complaint and in her affidavit by way of evidence.
5. We do not find any contradiction in the version given either in the complaint written in Hindi or the affidavit of evidence given in English.
The tenor of both the version is the same, i.e. on 25-07-2007 the respondent herself visited the show room to collect the sandals after repair. But only polish with dark colour was made to hide the cracks and as such she refused to take the sandals without it being properly repaired on which the appellant asked her to come on 08-08-2007 and inspite of repeated requests and visits nothing was done. On 80-08-2007 she was rather rebuked that she comes every morning as if the showroom belongs to her.
6. The quality and standard of every goods purchased by the consumer has to be tested on the anvil of definition of the word defect, as defined by Sec. 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, which means:-
any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
7. No consumer takes cudgels for no reason, so much so that she would make so many visits to the showroom of the appellant for getting the defects removed. The mere fact that there was some condition that the goods once sold will not be taken back, does not absolve the trade from compensating the consumer or returning the price of the defective goods. Under the garb of such an arbitrary condition no person can be allowed to sell highly defective goods. Sometimes the goods are given a glossy exterior to make it look so attractive that one goes for it but it is only after using it for a while one comes to know of the deceit.
8. In this case, the appellant first sold a defective pair of sandals and took the plea that the goods once sold will not be taken back and failed to repair the sandals in spite of visits by the respondent-consumer.
In terms of Sec. 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum is empowered either to direct the trader to remove the defects in the goods or return the price or money or to pay such amount to the complainant for the loss or injury suffered by him.
9. So far as the word compensation is concerned, it has been given a wide connotation by the Supreme Court which includes each and every element i.e. financial loss, harassment, emotional suffering, physical discomfort, etc. etc. The observations of the Supreme Court made in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 are as under:-
The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law.
10. In such cases, we have taken a view that the dispute between the trade and the consumer should be settled once for all. The pragmatic solution is to return the price charged by the trader as the possibility of removal of defects being not to the satisfaction of the consumer and the replacement of the goods with new goods being free from defect cannot be ruled out which may relegate the parties to square one forcing them to enter into a second bout of litigation.
11. Foregoing reasons persuade us to dismiss the appeal being highly misconceived as the amount of compensation and cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum are reasonable and rather conservative.
12. Payment shall be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
14. Copy of orders, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties and the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record.
15. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be released under proper receipt.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT HK