BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.202 of 2022
Date of Instt. 17.06.2022
Date of Decision: 27.06.2023
M. S. Bhatia, S/o Late Partap Singh Bhatia, resident of H. No.BP-27, Bashirpura, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Cheap Matting House Pvt. Ltd., G. T. Road, Near Jyoti Chowk, Jalandhar-14401 (Punjab)
2. M/s Kurlon Enterprises Limited, N-301, North Block, Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560042.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Gurbir Singh Bhatia, Auth. Rep. for Complainant.
None for OPs.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the son of the complainant Gurbir Singh purchased a pair of mattresses from M/s Cheap Matting House as a gift to him on 28.01.2021 by paying a sum of Rs.7100/-. Those mattresses started sagging from different points within four months. His son approached Cheap Matting House in the month of May, 2021, they suggested him to lodge an online complaint directly to the manufacturer. He pursued the case with the manufacturer and they asked for the photographs of those mattresses from different angles, showing the sagging. The manufacture approved the replacement and the complainant got a replaced pair of some mattresses on 16th June, 2021. Those replaced mattresses sagged again within three months and the same drill was repeated in October, 2021 i.e. online complaint, photos and approval. The complainant got another pair of mattresses on 10th November, 2021. Those mattresses sagged again and the same thing is repeated in the month of January, 2022. The complainant asked for a refund this time or a mattresses with better quality. Kurlon refused to refund, but agreed to replace. The complainant got the replacement on 19th February, 2022. The complainant again facing the same problem with those pair of mattresses, a complaint was lodged again in May, 2022. This time, they were making many excuses before replacing even. They are saying that the photos are not as desired, the sagged portion is not visible. Under the current circumstances, the complainant has left with no other options and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint may kindly be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.7100/- and further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, since the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission and has not approached the Commission with clean hands. It is further averred that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint against the answering OP. It is further averred that the present false and frivolous complaint has been filed on the basis of false, vague and evasive assertions. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and same has not been properly verified as required under law. The complaint is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit. Complainant has approached the Commission with soiled hands and has made the complaint in order to raise premeditated, false and frivolous dispute to harass the answering OP. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable, it is gross misuse of process of law. The complainant has filed the complaint with the sole motive of pressurizing and harassing the answering OP to submit to the unreasonable and unethical demands of the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against the OP No.1 as the answering OP is only trader and not manufacture of mattresses. As per complaint filed by the complainant it depicts that there may be any manufacturing defect. The present complaint is not maintainable as the same has not been filed by a competent person. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the mattresses by the son of the complainant is admitted and the facts regarding suggesting the son of the complainant to lodge an online complaint directly against the manufacturer is also admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action survives in favor of the complainant and against the OPs. It is imperative to mention here that pursuant to the complaint raised by the complainant, the case of the complainant was dealt with by the OPs in accordance with the settled procedure. It is worthwhile to mention here that complainant purchased a set of mattresses from OPs. The complainant represented the OPs and sought the replacement of mattresses alleging sagging therein. Although the sagging issue as claimed by the complainant did not suffice for the claim of replacement of mattress, however in the spirit of consumerism and to show the bonafide of answering OP not only once but thrice the mattresses were replaced. It is further averred that the complainant alleged in the complaint that again in the month of May 2022 complaint was made, however the O.Ps did not agree to replace the mattresses, as such he filed the present complaint. Although the complaint of complainant was not maintainable for replacement, as the sagging was less than 1.5 inches, however as a gesture of goodwill and in the spirit of consumerism, the complaint of complainant was approved as an exception and accordingly Sale Order was created on 14.06.2022 and accordingly mattresses were replaced on 24.06.2022, with fresh mattresses. Under the light of present submission, the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed as no cause of action survives. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed as complainant has made vital concealment from this Commission. Despite the fact that the mattresses of the complainant already stands replaced by the O.Ps with fresh mattresses, however the complainant did not bother to bring the aforesaid fact on record, as such the complaint filed by the complainant is also liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The OP No.1 is a reputed company known for premium quality of its products with warranty as also for providing after sales service to its customers. The complainant has even failed to place on record any such document etc., therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected on this score alone. The complaints of the complainant were immediately attended upon and accordingly the replacements were made by the answering O.P. only as a gesture of goodwill and in the spirit of consumerism. The Complainant has failed to make out any case of any deficiency in service. It is therefore submitted that the present proceedings filed by the Complainant are misconceived in law and on facts, as also not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further averred that without prejudice to the forgoing submission, it is respectfully submitted that the complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. It is must for the complainant to show that the reliefs as contemplated can be given for the defect in goods supplied or deficiency in service provided to the complainant. The mattress in question does not suffer from any manufacturing defect, whatsoever. It is submitted that the mattress manufactured by the OP No.2 are of the highest quality and fully complied with the assurances and specifications as provided for it by the OP No.2 regarding the quality and the performance of the product. The complaint is liable to be dismissed more particularly owing to the fact that the mattresses of complainant already stands replaced with fresh ones as an exceptional case. It is further averred that the complainant has not filed any documentary proof in support of his contention to show that the mattress really had and manufacturing defect. No expert evidence has been adduced by the complainant to establish any manufacturing defect in the product in question. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase a pair of mattresses by the complainant is admitted and the facts regarding visit by the complainant to the answering OP on different dates is also admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the arguments of Auth. Rep. of the complainant and partly arguments on behalf of the OP No.1 and OP No.2 and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant has purchased the Mattresses Teensy for Rs.7100/-, vide Ex.C-1 on 28.01.2021. The complainant has alleged that within four months of its purchase, the mattresses started sagging and he lodged the complaint online as was suggested and the mattresses were replaced on 16 June, 2021. Again, those mattresses sagged within three months and same were also replaced on 10 November, 2021. Those mattresses also sagged again and despite the demand of refund, the OP replaced the same on 19.02.2022. The complainant has alleged in rejoinder as well as by producing the documents by way of additional evidence that these replaced mattresses were again replaced during the pendency of the present complaint and the mattresses were replaced on 24.06.2022 during the pendency of the complaint. Even these changed mattresses again sagged. So, the complaint of the complainant is that despite replacing the mattresses number of times, the same material was given, which sagged within 3 or 4 months from the date of its purchase. The complainant has proved on record the bill Ex.C-1, bill of the replaced mattresses Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4. The complainant has also produced on record the copies of the photographs of the sagged mattresses Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8 and then the photograph of the sagged mattresses Ex.C-9, which is consisting of different sides of images showing the sagging of the mattresses.
8. The OPs have alleged that the complainant is a habitual to move the complaints before the different Forum and is a chronic litigant. They have denied that the mattresses are sagged in anyway, but those have been replaced for the satisfaction of the complainant and as a gesture of goodwill and in the spirit of consumerism. The OPs have relied upon the law laid down by the Chandigarh State Commission, U. T. in FA No.234 of 2014, decided on 20.06.2014, titled as ‘Santosh Gupta Vs. Gupta Vision an another’, where it is held that ‘Manufacturing defect Warranty period - Allegedly sound problem in LED TV - Neither could be repaired nor replaced District Forum dismissed the complaint Appeal against Held, mere bald allegation regarding manufacturing defect in TV cannot be believed in absence of any expert evidence Complaint seems to be vague and indefinite as no date and month had been mentioned, as to on which date TV started giving problems - Order of District Forum upheld - Appeal dismissed’
He has further relied upon a law laid down by Chandigarh State Commission, U. T. in FA No.84 of 2013, decided on 19.03.2013, titled as ‘R. S. Bedi Vs. Videocon Branch Officer, Chandigarh & Anr.’ that ‘Manufacturing defect in Original Invertor was replaced by new one - Defect neither rectified nor amount refunded alleged Deficiency in service Complaint Dismissal of, by District Forum dismissed complaint - Hence, this appeal Battery of original invertor was changed by OPs, when a complainant with regard to malfunctioning of same, complainant Mere fact, that original invertor and battery purchased by was made, by complainant, from opposite parties, were replaced by them, did not mean that new invertor and battery were also suffering from manufacturing/inherent defect Complainant failed to produce any expert evidence, to prove this factum - Held, replacement or refund of price has rightly not directed - Rightly ordered by District Forum to make same defect-free during warranty period.
9. From the documents produced on record by the complainant, it is not disputed and proved that the complainant had initially purchased mattresses, vide Ex.C-1 for Rs.7100/-. It is also proved by the complainant by placing and proving on record the photographs to show that the mattresses sagged within short span of the initial purchase. All the photographs proved on record show that the mattresses purchased by the complainant were replaced for four times, firstly on 16 June, 2021, then on 10 November, 2021, then on 19 February, 2022 then on 24, June 2022, i.e. during the pendency of the present complaint. The photographs clearly show the sagging of the mattresses and it is also proved that the defective mattresses were being sent to the complainant time and again. Since, the mattresses were actually defective that is why the mattresses have been replaced time and again by the OPs. The OP No.2 has relied upon the law titled as ‘Santosh Gupta Vs. Gupta Vision an another’ and ‘R. S. Bedi Vs. Videocon Branch Officer, Chandigarh & Anr.’, but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the defect in the product sold by the OP does not require any expert opinion as the same is not any machine or vehicle or any product which is an electrical product, the manufacturing defect of which could be ascertained by calling the expert opinion. The photographs have been produced on record by the complainant. No document has been produced or no document has been proved by the OP to rebut the contention of the complainant that the mattresses have sagged within short period. Since, the mattresses were sagged that is why the OPs have replaced the same number of times. This clearly shows that the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice by supplying defective mattresses. The mattresses have been replaced number of times, therefore, there is no point to direct the OPs to replace the product time and again and by now after replacing the 10 mattresses as alleged by the complainant, the complainant has lost faith in the company’s product. Therefore, the complainant has proved on record the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the amount of the Mattresses to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase till its realization. The complainant is directed to return the defective mattresses to the OPs at the time of receiving the award amount. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
27.06.2023 Member Member President
