The complainant failed to prove that the white patches on his feet were caused by the PVC chappals purchased from the respondents, and the complaint was barred by limitation.

Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 - SECTION 16(1) - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 113 - DEFECTIVE GOODS - BURDEN OF PROOF - LIMITATION - CONSUMER COMPLAINT - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged that he developed white patches on his feet after using PVC chappals purchased from the respondents' shop. He filed a complaint with the District Forum, which was returned for presentation to the State Commission. The respondents denied liability, contending that the chappals were not defective and that the complainant's condition was due to individual susceptibility.
Finding of the Court:

The State Commission held that the complainant failed to prove that the white patches were caused by the chappals. It noted that the complainant did not undergo medical tests to confirm the cause of his condition and that an expert analysis of the chappals showed that they did not contain any harmful chemicals. The Commission also found that the complaint was barred by limitation, as it was filed more than two years after the cause of action arose.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant proved that the white patches on his feet were caused by the PVC chappals purchased from the respondents? 2. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish that the defective goods caused the alleged injury. In the present case, the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the white patches were caused by the chappals. He did not undergo medical tests to confirm the cause of his condition, and an expert analysis of the chappals showed that they did not contain any harmful chemicals. 2. A consumer complaint must be filed within two years from the date the cause of action arose. In the present case, the cause of action arose when the complainant developed white patches on his feet, which was more than two years before he filed the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The State Commission dismissed the complaint.

ORDER

R.G. Desai, President—The complainant was working as a Teacher in the Government High School, Jalahalli, Bangalore. Sri. S. T. Ganganna (CW-1) is also working in the same school. Sri. K. Raghavendra Char (CW-2) was also working in that school till about 5-6 months back when he was transferred from that school.

2. The complainant purchased PVC Sandak chappals from the Bata Show-room in Rajajinagar in about 1987. After, wearing those chappals for about 3 months he developed white patches on both his feet. According to the complainant his skin was affected due to the chemical compounds used in manufacturing PVC Sandak Badsha chappals of Bata Company. When he complained about it to the Manager of the shop, he was given another pair of leather chappals in exchange for the PVC chappals. Then he sent a complaint dated 5.2.1987 to the Managing Director of Bata Company, Calcutta as per the original of Exhibit R-7(a). Then he was got examined by Dr. Surendra (RW-1) who prescribed certain tests for the complainant. Thereafter the Bata Company officials never cared to take him for undergoing those tests. Hence he sent a complaint dated 1.3.1990 to the District Forum, Bangalore, claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. That complaint was returned to him by the District Forum on 24.3.1990 for presenting it to this Commission as it had no jurisdiction. On 30.3.1990, he submitted the said complaint to this Commission.

3. The complaint is resisted by the respondents by contending inter alia that they are not the manufacturers of the PVC chappals in question as they are only arranging for sale of all footwears manufactured and supplied by Bata India Limited, that they are not the traders as they are only the employees of the Company; that M/s. Eskaps India (P) Ltd. , Calcutta tested the PVC chappals and have issued a certificate as per Exhibit R-6 to the effect that the PVC chappals do not contain any chemical compounds injurious to human skin, that Vitiligo could be contracted by various reasons and not necessarily by using PVC chappals, that although lakhs of persons use their chappals, no other person has complained about contracting white patches by using such chappals. that the complainant has not contracted white patches by using those chappals and he must have contracted them on account of his individual susceptibility and that the compensation claimed as exhorbitant.

4. CWs 1 & 2 have been examined on behalf of the complainant. RWs 1 to 6 have been examined and Exhibits R1 to R9 have been produced on behalf of the respondents. RW-4 was examined on Commission.

5. The first and the most important point that arises for determination in this case is whether the complainant has proved that he contracted the white patches on his feet by using PVC Sandak Badsha chappals sold to him by the respondents. It is not disputed that a pair of PVC Badsha chappals was purchased by the complainant from the show-room of the respondents in Rajajinagar, Bangalore. According to the complainant, he purchased them in about 1987 and after using them for about three months he developed three small white patches on the dorsem of each of his foot. The complainant has not entered the Witness Box to substantiate his averments in his complaint. He has not offered himself for cross- examination by the respondents.

6. It is not disputed by the complainant that he was examined by Dr. Surendra (RW1) on 22.4.1987. Exhibits R-1 & R-2 are the notes and certificates of RW-1. RW-1 has stated that he advised the complainant to undergo urine, stools and blood tests and also to have skin biopsy and scraping for fungus. He has stated that the complainant never showed him those test reports and that he would have diagnosed the disease of the complainant if he had undergone those tests and he could have treated him. He has also stated that there was a possibility of complainant being cured if he had taken proper treatment. The complainant has not subjected himself to those tes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document