Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/225/2022

SURINDER PAL VSHISHTHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.225/22

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Surinder Pal Vashishtha R/o B 14, Rungmahal Apartments 3rd Floor, Pitampura, Delhi-110034	Complainant
	Versus
	Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Godrej Interio-Store E 57, Gurunanakpura,  New Delhi-110058	Oppositep Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                          DATE OF ORDER:

16.07.18 04.04.24 21.05.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party alleging deficiency in services and negligent act.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant purchased 5 items from the Opposite Party namely One set of Jinero Sofa, 2 dual magic mattress, 1 thems recliner, 1 bean bagfor total amounting to Rs. 1,08,390/-.The Complainant stated that all the goods delivered except one pair of mattresses were not in a good Condition and found to be defective. The sofa was defective with uneven filling of foam in the back rest of the sofa, the mattress (pairs) were over sized and the Complainant did not find bean bag comfortable  and the 2 full size comforters were smaller in size. The Complainant stated that vide mail dated 12.03.17 this was informed to the Opposite Party. Vide mail dated 02.04.17 the Complainant informed the Opposite Party that he has received an SMS message dated 25.03.17 to the effect that our service call D2402522855 is completed and the case closed. The Complainant has also informed the Opposite Party that he received a call on  02.04.17 morning from Godrej Packaging department that a person from is being dispatched to his home to ‘collect’ whatever repair material is left over, despite nobody visited us till date. Hence the status quo remains an unattended complaint. It is stated that vide mail dated 03.04.17 the Complainant was informed that complaint was forwarded to Delhi Branch.Thereafter vide mail dated 12.06.17 the Opposite Party provided new complaint no. 526528 after mails dated 04.04.17, 09.04.17 and 07.05.17.Thereafter Opposite Party again admitted negligence by sending small size mattresses. Again vide mail dated 26.06.17 Opposite Party was informed by Complainant that the fresh mattresseswas delivered as replacement and someone will come to open it but nobody turned up. It is stated that vide mail dated 31.07.17 Opposite Party informed the Complainant that SCCM no. 527663 was generated to get the mattress inspected at the Complainant’s residence. Vide mail dated 21.12.17 Complainant informed that the mattress which was replaced by Godrej was not only unevenly stitched but has begun to sag in the middle.Thereafter vide mail dated 26.12.17 Opposite Party asked the Complainant to register new complaint for mattress sagging. Vide email dated 14.01.18, Complainant informed the Opposite Party that it has been 19 days when no inspection of mattress and repair of recliner and the suggested replacement of sofa has taken place. Further vide mail dated 15.01.18 Opposite Party informed the Complainant that they got mattress inspected and any mattress is always tapered and rounded towards the corners and same is not considered as a defect.Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to pay Rs. 2,53,390/- with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of bill i.e. 18.11.16 till the filing of complaint. Further the Complainant has also prayed for future interest @ 18 % from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party has raised preliminary objections interalia that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action does not arise within the jurisdiction of DCDRF- Shalimar Bagh. On merits, it has been contended that there has been no manufacturing defects in the products in question as every product is made by Opposite Party Company after quality checks and standards by the company itself. It is also contended that the dimensions of the mattresses supplied were okay as per norms and as the bed was not purchased from them, size issue was involved in bed not in mattresses. It is also stated that the mattress were replaced by them to the full satisfaction of the Complainant as a good will gesture. The Opposite Party has denied the averments and allegations made in the complaint and submitted that there has no deficiency on their part.Hence, the complaint must be dismissed for being frivolous.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavitwherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party filed affidavit ofSh. Ajay Mathur, Branch Commercial Manager of Opposite Party wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
7. It is the case of the Complainant that he purchased from the Opposite Party total 5 items and all of them except one pair of mattresses were found to be defective and in bad condition. It is alleged that despite several complaints, Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the Complainant’s requests and failed to replace the products or repair the products. It is alleged that the Opposite Party had falsely assured of quality goods which the Opposite Party was not capable of offering. The Complainant had to approach Opposite Party again and again for replacement of goods causing him great inconvenience. Hence, the Complainant prays for the refund as well as the compensation.
8. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Party is that they supplied the quality products as per the norms and resolved the issues of the Complainant as a good will gesture. Opposite Party has denied all the allegations and contended that they have not deficient in services, hence the complaint be dismissed.
9. In their reply, Opposite Party had raised preliminary objection on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. We heard at length on the said point. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Complainant submits that the complaint is well within the jurisdiction DCDRF-Shalimar Bagh as the products, subject matter of the complaint were delivered at Pitampura. We have perused purchase invoice which clearly shows that the products were delivered at the Pitampura which falls under the jurisdiction of DCDRF-Shalimar Bagh. In our considered view, since the part cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the commission, the issue is decided in favour of Complainant, thus, the complaint is very much maintainable as being withinterritorial jurisdiction.
10. Now, coming to the merits of the matter, the allegations of the Complainant are related to the quality of the products in question. The Complainant alleges that defective products were supplied. The sofa was defective with uneven filling of foam in the back rest of the sofa, the mattress (pairs) were oversized and the Complainant did not find bean bag comfortable  and the 2 full size comforters were smaller in size.
11.  The contention of the Complainant regarding defective sofa has been rebutted by the Opposite Party that the said sofa was installed to the satisfaction of the Complainant and relied upon service order/Job sheet of Assembly installation. The said document bears signature of the Complainant acknowledging job satisfaction. Hence, the said allegation is rejected that sofa was defective. So far as the issue with mattresses is concerned the Complainant has admitted in the complaint itself that the Opposite Party replaced the said mattresses which the Complainant again found under sized. In reply, the Opposite Party has contended that the dimensions of the mattresses supplied were okay as per norms and as the bed was not purchased from them, size issue was involved in bed not in mattresses. The Complainant alleges that Opposite Party had admitted the liability while the Opposite Party had stated that they had replaced the mattresses as good will gesture. On this point, we agree with the Opposite Party stand as the Complainant himself purchased the mattresses as per his choice. The Complainant had not proved this point that the Opposite Party supplied the mattresses different from the size ordered, hence, the said allegation of the Complainant stands rejected. Moreover, the Opposite Party had replaced the same but the Complainant again found them undersized. It is also alleged by the Complainant that he did not find bean bag comfortable and the 2 full size comforters were smaller in size. The Complainant has admitted in his complaint that comforters were not purchased by him but gifted by Opposite Party. Since the complainant has not paid any consideration for those items, the same does not come within the ambit of Consumer Act. So far as the allegation related to the comfort of bean bag is concerned, first of all,there is no criteria of comfort as it is very subjective and varies person to person, secondly, Complainant himself purchased the said product from the showroom and could have decided the level of comfort at the time of purchase. Hence, the allegations are rejected outrightly.
12. The perusal of the material on records including the correspondence taken place between the parties show that the Opposite Party had been attending to the complaints and the concerns of the Complainant and the Complainant had failed to prove that the Opposite Party had supplied defective products or Opposite Party had not attended to his complaints.
13.  In view of above, we do not see any deficiency on their part in providing services to the Complainant and in our considered view, the complaint is without merits.
14.  Thus, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
15. Order announced on 21.05.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)