JAMNA PRASAD KAPOOR Vs. BATA SHOE STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against order dated 6th May, 2002, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.267/2001 - entitled Jamna Prasad Kapoor V/s. Bata Shoe Store.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Shri Jamna Prasad Kapoor, had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had purchased a pair of shoes from the respondent-Bata Shoe Store, F.2/14 Krishna Nagar, Delhi, on 29th October, 2000 for Rs.350/-. Along with the complaint, the appellant had also annexed a copy of the cash memo No.7076 dated 29th October, 2000, in support of his contention regarding the purchase of a pair of shoes from the respondent. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum in nutshell was that the pair of shoes sold to him by the respondent was sub-standard/defective as the sole of one of the shoes, out of the pair of shoes purchased by him, had come out. It was stated that the appellant had requested for replacement, but no relief was given to the appellant by respondent. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum it was prayed that the respondent be directed to refund the cost of the defective pair of shoes, amounting to Rs.350/-. The appellant had also claimed a compensation of Rs.5,000/-, another sum of Rs.500/- on account of expenses besides the cost of litigation.

(3.) The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent, the sale of a pair of shoes to the appellant on 29th October, 2000 for Rs.349.95 was admitted. It was stated that on 3rd February, 2001 the appellant had visited the store of the respondent and raised a claim for exchange of footwear purchased by him, alleging that the shoes had become defective as the pasting of the sole was not proper. It was stated that the respondent offered free-pasting of the sole and also apologized for the inconvenience caused. It was also stated that the appellant was adamant, did not accept the offer of the respondent and threatened the respondent by saying that he would teach the respondent a lesson and would lodge a complaint before the District Forum. The other allegations levelled by the appellant in the complaint were also denied by the respondent.