State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunil Kapoor vs Reebok West Wind Retails on 16 June, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 337 of 2017
Date of institution : 04.05.2017
Date of decision : 16.06.2017
Sunil Kapoor aged 49 years son of Sh. Ram Nath Kapoor, resident
of Block-1, House No. 631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana -
141 001
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Reebok West Wind Retails 14-15, Ground Floor, The
Boulevard Mall, Mall Road, Ludhiana Phone - 0161 46030404
through its Manager.
2. Reebok India Company, 530/1, 3 & 4, Bijwasan, Opp.
Ambedkar Colony, New Delhi - 61 email :
[email protected] Tel. 0124-4124190 through its
Customer Care Executive.
3. Reebok India Company, MaaDham, Opp. Writer Company,
Village Kherki Daula, Gurgaon - 122 001 Te. 0124-4124190
through the concerned.
4. Mochiko Shoes Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No. 2912, Mauza Mazri
Grant Le Tapper, District Dehradun (U.K.) through the concerned.
....Respondents/Ops
First Appeal against the order dated
03.03.2017 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sunil Kapoor in person.
First Appeal No. 337 of 2017 2
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 58 dated 03.03.2017 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) on the averments that he purchased a pair of shoe article # M41349 from Op No. 1 on 24.1.2015 vide retail invoice No. SC 1509 for a sum of Rs. 2759/-. These shoes were offered on discount @ 40% on MRP Rs. 4,599/- from Boulevard Mall, Mall Road, Ludhiana. In the month of May 2015, the upper net portion of left fellow of the abovesaid pair of shoes started coming apart from its seams and became distorted and looked awkward. He deposited the pair with Op No. 1 to do the needful vide receipt dated 30.5.2015. Op No. 1 telephonically intimated the complainant on 2.6.2015 that in lieu of the said shoes, he can buy another item of the same value available with him with no offer of discount. Since the complainant did not need other item, he humbly requested Op No. 1 to arrange for another fresh and flawless pair of shoes of the same article or in the alternative to refund the payment against the said shoes. However, Op No. 1 has failed to either replace the shoes in First Appeal No. 337 of 2017 3 question or in the alternative to pay the refund of the same. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, the complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking directions against the Ops to refund a sum of Rs. 2,759/- alongwith interest, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/- and punitive damages of Rs. 35,000/-.
3. Upon notice, complaint was contested by Ops, who filed their written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable because time to time goods are sold under various schemes such as discount, freebies etc. and it is perfectly clarified to the customers that the discounted goods does not carry any replacement or refund. The complainant had allegedly purchased the shoes on discounted rates during the end of season sale with his all satisfactions; Ops had given 3 months warranty to all its customers for any manufacturing defect under the scheme and the complainant was informed about the same at the time of purchase of the goods and terms and conditions were printed on the receipt issued by Op No. 1. However, the complainant approached Op No. 1 after 5 months from the date of purchase of the shoes for replacement under the warranty scheme; Op No. 1 informed that the product, which was purchased by him, could not be replaced as the warranty period had expired. However, as a goodwill gesture, Op No. 1 had agreed to replace the shoes for the same model number being available in the stock. However, same model number shoes were not available and they gave the option to the complainant to purchase something else for First Appeal No. 337 of 2017 4 the amount paid, however, the complainant was adamant to get the same discount on the fresh arrival shoes/goods whereas there was no policy of the Company for the refund of the amount on the goods sold on discount; the complaint is liable to be dismissed against Op Nos. 2 & 3 because they had sold the goods to Op No. 1 in perfect condition and to its satisfaction and these Ops were not directly involved in the sale and purchase of the goods and that this Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In parawise reply, the preliminary objections were reiterated. It was further stated that the complainant had purchased shoes worth Rs. 2759/- at 40% discount rates vide receipt dated 24.1.2015. However, after a gap of 5 months, he lodged the complaint whereas the warranty period was only for 3 months. However, as a goodwill gesture, he was asked to purchase any item of the value for which shoes were purchased but he was adamant for refund or replacement with a fresh pair of shoes, which was not possible under the warranty terms. Therefore, there was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
4. Before the District Forum, the parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CA and documents Exs. C- 1 to C-8. On the other hand, Op Nos. 1 to 3 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Ranjan Ex. RA.
First Appeal No. 337 of 2017 5
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the complainant.
9. It was argued by the complainant, who is appearing in person that he was not aware of the terms and conditions with regard to the product in question and he was never asked to sign the terms and conditions, therefore, the terms and conditions are not binding upon the complainant of which the Ops are taking the benefit. The copy of the terms and conditions has been placed on the record before the District Forum as Ex. C-1 and photocopy has been placed on the record of the appeal and according to term No. 4, warranty against the manufacturing defect for the products exist only for 3 months from the date of purchase. However, the complaint was lodged by the complainant after the expiry of three months. In case we accept the version given by the complainant that warranty terms and conditions were not got noted from him as his signatures were not taken on the warranty terms and conditions, then what are other warranty terms and conditions upon which he is seeking the replacement. On the one side, he is taking the benefit of warranty terms and conditions for replacement and refund and at the same time, he is showing ignorance about the said terms and conditions, therefore, the complainant cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. The terms and conditions First Appeal No. 337 of 2017 6 were printed at the bottom of the receipt and the receipt has been produced by the complainant in his own evidence and once the terms and conditions are printed on the invoice itself then there is presumption that the complainant had the knowledge about the said terms and conditions. Since the complaint was lodged by the complainant after a gap of more than 3 months, therefore, his case for replacement or refund is not covered under the warranty terms. As per the averments made by the Ops in their written reply they had offered that he can purchase any other item of the same value to which the complainant did not opt but was adamant for refund or replacement, which is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions, therefore, District Forum was justified to dismiss the complaint of the complainant being beyond the scope of warranty terms and conditions. We agree with the findings so recorded by the District Forum.
10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant was unable to make any point for admission of the appeal, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is dismissed in limine.
11. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER June 16, 2017.
as First Appeal No. 337 of 2017 7