Delay In Decision Due To Covid-19 Restrictions Is Not A Ground For Enhancement Of Compensation, H.P. State Commission Dismisses Appeal

Brief Facts:

Mr Naresh Verma (“Complainant”) purchased a pair of shoes from Singh Brothers (“Seller”) for a sum of Rs. 3,400/-. The Seller assured the Complainant that there is a warranty of six months on the shoes. However, the shoes were spoiled within 3 months. The Complainant approached the Seller to exchange the shoes, but his request was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (“District Commission”).

The Seller contended that it is not responsible for the manufacturing defects in the shoes. Further, the Seller allowed the Complainant to leave the shoes at its shop, which would be further sent to the manufacturer, but the Complainant failed to turn up for the same. The Seller also denied that the Complainant visited the shop several times.

The District Commission allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded for compensation, the Complainant filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (“State Commission”) for enhancement of compensation. The enhancement request was based because the Complainant had to attend around 19 hearings between 2019 and 2022, with a significant rise in inflation.

Observations of the Commission:

Going into the reasons behind multiple hearings, the State Commission held that the reasons cannot be attributed to the Seller. The main reason was caused due to Covid-19 restrictions and the vacancy of the post of President in the District Commission for 2 years. Furthermore, the Complainant continued to use the defective shoes and also retained the same with him. He failed to present any evidence to show the expenditure incurred by him towards litigation costs.

Therefore, the State Commission held that the compensation awarded by the District Commission was just and reasonable in light of the factual matrix and inflation index. The appeal filed by the Complainant was dismissed.

Case Title: Naresh Verma vs Singh Brothers (Shoe Palace)

Case No.: F.A. No. 37/2023

Advocate for the Complainant/Appellant: Mr Sukh Dev Sharma

Advocate for the Respondent (Seller): Mr Atul Sood

Click Here To Read/Download The Order