MAHESH BIHARI Vs. ANTHONY DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.6.92 in complaint No.61/df/92 before the District Forum, Panaji. The impugned order had directed the appellant to refund to the respondent amount of Rs.895/within 30 days of the order failing which the appellant would be liable to pay interest thereon at 18% per annum for having sold defective shoes to the appellant.

(2.) The respondent had produced the torn shoes before the District Forum and the District Forum was satisfied about the defect in the shoes. Advocate Bodke representing of the appellant argued that the shoes (Puma Invader No.7) sold by the appellant to the respondent were manufactured by Carona Ltd. and that the appellant had sold the shoes to the respondent relying upon the bona fide of the company.

(3.) The respondent in person stated that he had earlier purchased a pair from the appellant which was found to be defective and was replaced by the appellant. The second pair was also found to be defective but the appellant refused to oblige when the respondent approached them with the defective shoes for second replacement. Since it is sufficiently proved that the shoes sold to the respondent is defective, we find no substance in this appeal.