By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The case of the complainant is that on 23.07.2015 he had purchased one wooden mattress, one Cupboard and one bed from the opposite party’s shop and paid an amount of Rs.13,000/- for mattress, Rs.10,000/- for Cupboard and Rs.9,000/- for bed. At the time of purchase the opposite party had given 10 year guarantee. But about eight months before filing of this complaint some kind of white powder emerged from the mattress and the mattress is left useless. And then the Cupboard also damaged. The complainant intimated the matter to the opposite party and asked the opposite party to repair them. But the opposite party neither responded nor carried out the repairing works. Hence the complainant had met huge loss and sustained difficulties. So, the opposite party is liable to replace the useless Mattress and Cupboard and pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Hence this complaint.
3. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased the things as stated in the complaint from him but that things were not manufactured by him and had not given any guarantee for 10 years. No warrantee or guarantee was provided by the manufacturer to the opposite party and hence the opposite party could not give any warrantee or guarantee to the complainant. The opposite party further averred that the complainant is residing at Changadakadavu, near to the riverbank which is a place of flood affected area during August, 2018. On November 2018 the complainant approached the opposite party and told that the furniture were got damaged due the flood and asked to repair it. At that time the opposite party expressed his willingness to repair the damaged furniture for a reasonable rate. The damages happened due to the flood and also due to the mishandling. The opposite party never tried to cheat the complainant and not liable to pay compensation. The complaint is not a genuine one and the only intention behind the Complainant is to harass the opposite party and ulterior motive of the complainant is to get undue advantage, somehow.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite
party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?.
5. Point No. 1 and 2 :- For the sake of convenience the points No.1 and 2 are considered together.
6. The complainant was examined as PW-1 and the purchase bill annexed to the complaint is marked as Ext.A-1. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party.
7. On going through the available records and submissions there is no dispute as to the fact that the complainant had purchased the furniture from opposite party’s shop. There is no dispute regarding the date of purchase. Only dispute is that whether the opposite party had given any guarantee to the furniture he had sold to the complainant. The only document produced by the complainant is the purchase bill. There is no document produced to show the warrantee or guarantee. At the time of cross examination PW-1, the complainant admitted that he is residing near to the Changadakkadavu River. During 2018 flood affected to the complainant and he had received the Flood relief from the Government.
8. The burden of proof lies on the complainant’s side. In this case the complainant failed to prove that the furniture purchased from the opposite party had covered warrantee or guarantee but the complainant submits that the opposite party had provided an oral guarantee. The complainant has not produced the so called damaged articles before this Forum or no steps were taken out for appointing a commission. Through the version the opposite party expressed his willingness to repair the damaged furniture at a reasonable cost. In the absence of evidence regarding the guarantee the Forum could not order the opposite party to replace the damaged furniture. Here the complainant utterly failed to prove the deficiency of service alleged against the opposite party. Hence the points are found against the complainant.
9. Point No. 3:- Since the other points are found against the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and costs from opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of March 2020.
Date of filing:28.03.2019.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant.:-
PW1. Abdul Majeed. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Bill. dt:23.07.2015.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
