Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Chandigarh: Sector 17 shop owner told to refund shoe cost, pay compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed Qureshi Shoe Maker, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, to refund Rs 1,200 and also pay compensation of Rs 1,000 to a city resident for allegedly selling defective shoes. Shri Dutt Sharma, a resident...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Photo for representational purpose only. - File photo
Advertisement

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed Qureshi Shoe Maker, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, to refund Rs 1,200 and also pay compensation of Rs 1,000 to a city resident for allegedly selling defective shoes.

Shri Dutt Sharma, a resident of Chandigarh, in the complaint filed before the commission said that on January 15, 2023, he, along with his wife, visited the shop and purchased two pairs of shoes.

However, the next day when he put the shoes on for attending a meeting, its sole got damaged due to which his foot was wounded. On the same day, he visited the shoe maker, but he refused to refund the amount.

Advertisement

On insistence, the shoe maker issued a back-dated cheque for Rs 1,200 for one pair of shoes against the total sum of Rs 1,700 for two pairs of shoes. The shoe maker kept the pair of shoes and told him that he would send the replacement through courier, but refused to issue any bill for the shoes purchased by his wife for Rs 500. On January 18, 2023, the shoe maker delivered the same old pair of shoes to him after repair.

The complainant visited the shop for a refund and also sent a notice, but to no avail. Alleging that the act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the shoe maker, he filed the consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount paid along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

Advertisement

Despite notice, the shoe maker did not appear before the commission and accordingly it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated August 1.

After hearing the arguments, the commission said the non-appearance of the shoe maker showed that he had nothing to say in his defence vis-a-vis the allegations made by the complainant.

Therefore, the contention of the complainant goes unrebutted and the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the shoe maker are proved. In view of this, he is directed to refund Rs 1,200 to the complainant along with interest at 10% per annum from the date of its payment by the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs 1,000 to the complainant for the harassment caused to him, it added.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper