JAMNA PRASAD KAPOOR vs BATA SHOE STORE

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 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. Bata Shoe Store.

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 Section 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. 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.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the respondent to replace the defective footwear with a new footwear of same value. The learned District Forum has also awarded costs and compensation of Rs. 100/-, to be paid to the appellant by the respondent within 30 days.

NOT being satisfied with the above order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/mateiral on record. On the basis of material on record, the purchase of the footwear in question by the appellant from the respondent for consideration is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the footwear purchased by the appellant was defective and on the above ground, the learned District Forum has ordered for the replacement of the footwear. The sole grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that the relief granted to the appellant by the District Forum is inadequate. The appellant has contended before us that the appellant should have been granted a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, together with cost of litigation. Relief to a consumer by a Redressal Agency, established under the Act, can be granted only in terms of Section 14 of the Act. Sub-clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act deals with compensation that can be awarded to a ''consumer'' by a Redressal Agency established under the Act. The above said provision of the Act reads as under : "(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party."

ON a plain reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is apparent that a ''consumer'' may be awarded compensation for any loss or injury suffered by the ''consumer'' due to the negligence of the opposite party. The Hon''ble National Commission in a recent decision - in case Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. H.B. Impex Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2002 CTJ 106 (CP) (NCDRC), has held in clear-cut terms that where a consumer sues for damages, the loss he suffered as a result of breach of contract, must not be too remote and a distinction has to be drawn between normal and abnormal or unusual loss. In other words, a consumer, in terms of the above provisions, can be compensated only for normal loss and not for any abnormal or unusual or remote loss. With a view to satisfy ourselves, we have put a specific query to the appellant, asking him to satisfy us as to how the relief granted to the appellant by the District Forum can be treated or termed as inadequate in terms of the provisions of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. No satisfactory reply could be given by the appellant to our above query. No other point is urged or pressed before us by the appellant. In our opinion, in the given facts, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity, so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine, with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.