Date: 04-08-2015

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya

This appeal is directed against the Order dated 29-09-2014 of the Ld. District Forum, Unit I, Kolkata, passed in C. C. No. 63/2012, whereby the instant complaint case has been allowed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OP thereof has preferred this appeal.

Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a sofa set (3 pieces) during the fag end of the year 2007 from the OP and within two years, he noticed some cracks on the surface of the said sofa set, which gradually spread further. So, he lodged complaint with the OP, but it did not take any remedial step to repair the sofa set.  Hence, the complaint case.

OP contested the case by filing WV, whereby it stated that the sofa set being imported items, are not guaranteed products and the Complainant was duly informed of the same before selling the product to him.  After expiry of 30 months from the date of purchase of the sofa set, the Complainant issued a notice on 21-03-2011.  In reply to such notice, the OP vide its letter dated 04-04-2011 categorically stated that the sofa was made of P U leather, which has its own shelf life and the poly layer which was pasted on clothe has a tendency of pilling off the clothe after certain duration and because of excessive humidity in Kolkata, such peel off takes place quite faster. The Complainant was further informed that replacement cost of such P U leather would be half of the cost of the sofa set, which the Complainant would have to bear if he was desirous of changing it. 

The Ld. District Forum adjudicated the case in favour of the Complainant and directed the Appellant to refund Rs. 45,000/- to the Complainant besides awarding compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-, respectively.

The core question to be decided in this appeal is whether the impugned order suffers from any legal and/or factual infirmity, or not.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Respondent was sufficiently apprised of the risk factors associated with the sofa set, yet he decided to go for it.  The product being an imported item, it was not a guaranteed item.  Moreover, the Respondent admittedly did not find any difficulty with the sofa set for long.  There is nothing to show that the product is suffering from any kind of manufacturing defect.  In such circumstances, the Appellant cannot be held liable for emergence of alleged cracks in the sofa set.  Moreover, an offer was made to the Respondent to repair the damaged cracks by replacing the P U leathers at 50% of the total cost of the sofa set.  In such circumstances, the impugned order be set aside.

Respondent has submitted that the Appellant did not utter a single word about the drawbacks of said sofa set.  On the contrary, it left no stone unturned to convince him about the incomparable quality of the sofa set in question when he visited its shop.  In case, he had a slightest inclination about its non-durability, he would never go for the sofa set in question, burning a hole in his pocket.  The impugned order is fully justified one and it be upheld in toto.

It is to be noted that two specific grounds have been advanced by the Appellant in support of its defence, i.e., (1) the sofa set is not covered under any guarantee and, (2) the Respondent was duly apprised of the limited shelf life of the sofa set, more specifically, about the short-durability of P U leather, especially in humid condition. So, we confine ourselves to discuss these two issues to come to a conclusion.

It is contended by the Appellant that the sofa set, being an imported product, has no guarantee.  We, however, do not find any merit in such contention.  There are plenty of imported products those are covered under long guarantee/warrantee.  That apart, irrespective of whether a product is imported or domestically manufactured, what is of paramount importance is that a consumer gets optimum value of his hard-earned money.  A seller cannot get away selling anything and everything.  It has a bounden duty to ensure that quality of a product is not compromised under any circumstances.  

A sofa set is not something that is extensively used by a person.  In spite of this, if a sofa set develops cracks within two years of its purchase, it is certainly a sad commentary about its quality.  In fact, the Appellant too has tacitly admitted such fact while it has stated in its Memo of Appeal that the poly layer which is pasted on clothe, has a tendency of peeling off the clothe after some duration, which is dependent on weather condition and since humidity is pretty high in Kolkata, such peeling off takes place faster.  Clearly, this kind of sofa set is not suitable for humid-prone places like Kolkata and also discernable is the fact that quality components were not used to make the sofa set, notwithstanding it was sold at a whooping price of Rs. 45,000/-.

It is claimed by the Appellant that it kept the Respondent in the loop about the limited shelf-life of P U leather, yet the latter stumbled on this product on his own volition.  Going by the version of the Appellant, the Respondent was fully conscious of the inevitability of the present situation.  Is it at all believable that any person of reasonable prudence, despite knowing that the components used in the making of the product, he intends to purchase is not suitable for the weather condition of his place of inhabitation, which would entail substantial repairing cost on regular basis, would still evince his interest in such a product and buy it at a considerable price.  While adjudicating a dispute, we cannot be oblivious of the practicality, feasibility and probability of a matter.  No wonder, the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Shri Shivaji vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2013 (1) CPR 74 (NC) has observed that, “Consumer Fora have to be empirical and practical in confronting reality”. It is quite unheard of a seller highlighting the drawbacks of a product to a prospective customer.  The Appellant has not placed on record copy of any brochure containing detail feature of such product, which might have given some credence to its assertion about sounding out due caution to the Respondent prior to selling the sofa set in question.  Such unfounded claims surely tip the scale in favour of the Respondent.

Another intriguing fact that is worth mentioning here while the Respondent has complained about surfacing of cracks in the sofa set, the Appellant sidestepping the core issue, dwelt at great length the inescapability of poly leather peeling off the clothe.  It hardly requires any emphasis that “peel off” and “crack” is not the same thing.  It goes to show that the Respondent itself is in a quandary about development of cracks in the sofa set within such short duration. 

The Appellant demanded Rs. 22,500/- for repairing the sofa set and significantly, it expects the Respondent to agree to such proposal despite knowing that it would not buy him peace of mind for long, but after some duration, similar situation would recur.  There is no reason to believe that anybody in his proper frame of mind would even think of looking at it, let alone buy it if he has any prior inclination of the same. 

We have no hesitation holding that the sofa set in question is nothing but an apology of a product and by selling such below par sofa set, the Appellant did great injustice to the Respondent. Against this backdrop, and given the fact that the Appellant has made it clear in its WV that it is not agreeable to replace the defective sofa set, we find no flaw with the impugned order. We are fully in agreement with the view taken by the Ld. District Forum and do not see any reason whatsoever, therefore, to interfere with the same as such.

In the result, the appeal fails.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.  Parties do bear their respective costs.