PROPRIETOR ALBA SHOES Vs. NAGESH GOVIND DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the District Forum, Nanded dated 28.7.193 passed in Complaint No.280/92. The complaint was filed by Mr. Nagesh Deshmukh against the proprietor of Alba Shoes, Nanded alleging that he had purchased shoes of Liberty Company from the complainant's shop on 6.11.91 for an amount of Rs.275/-. According to the complainant, within a fortnight, the shoe was damaged, as a result of which he could not use the pair of shoes. The complainant, therefore, took up the matter with the opposite party for the repairs of that shoe.

(2.) According to the complainant, after a month again the shoe got damaged. The complainant again took back shoe to the opposite party for replacement of a new pair of shoes of the Liberty Company and the opposite party refused to do that and hence the complainant filed the complaint. The District Forum by the impugned order allowed that complaint had directed the opposite party to replace the pair of shoes and also awarded cost of Rs.50/-.

(3.) We have perused the impugned order and find that the impugned order cannot be upheld. The complainant has alleged that he purchased a Liberty Company Shoes from the opposite party. However, the receipt issued by opposite party dated 7.11.91 show that the opposite party is having its name as Alba Shoes. The receipt he has filed on record, (a xeroxed copy of which is filed in Appeal) at Ex.1, show that there is no name of Liberty Shoes mentioned in the receipt, although the amount of price is shown as Rs.275/-. The xeroxed copy of the guarantee card is also placed on recor at Ex.1. In that xeroxed copy, the name of the article is written as "moejaj" and not as Liberty Shoes. Thus, we find that neither the receipt nor the guarantee card issued to the complainant show that a Liberty Shoe was sold to the complainant by the opposite party. In his complaint, the complainant has alleged that he had purchased pair of shoes of Liberty Make for repairs to the opposite party. It is also alleged that the said Liberty Shoe after its repairs by the opposite party got damaged within a month. We are also unable to find that whether the complainant filed his complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency while repairing the shoe or for replacement of the shoe. If it is a case of replacement of shoe then the impugned order cannot be maintained since it is not borne out from the material on record that opposite party sold Liberty Make Shoe to the complainant. Under these circumstances, we are unable to uphold the order in question and hence we allow this appeal and pass the following: -ORDER