STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

Smrita Devi w/o Sh.Sandeep r/o H.No.2513-A, Sector 39-C, Chandigarh

              ... Appellant.

                                                 Versus

1.  Gopi Furnishing (2017-2018), SCO No.3035, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

2.   Chairman/Managing Director of Kurl-on, 3rd Floor, North Block, Manipal Centre, Sector 47, Dickenson Road, Bangalore-560042.

3.  Secretary through Kurl-on, 3rd Floor, North Block, Manipal Centre,                   Sector 47, Dickenson Road, Bangalore-560042.

4.  General Manager through Kurl-on, 3rd Floor, North Block, Manipal      Centre, Sector 47, Dickenson Road, Bangalore-560042.

5.   Present Address:-  N-301, North Block, Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560042 through Kurl-on, 3rd Floor, North Block, Manipal Centre, Sector 47, Dickenson Road, Bangalore-560042

                                                                        ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 03.01.2023 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.115/2020.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.Vivek Arora,  Advocate for the  appellant .

                         Sh.Arun Dogra ,  Advocate for respondent No.2.

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.01.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed  the complaint.  

2.       Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant  that  she purchased mattresses from Opposite Party/Respondent  No.1 vide bill dated 10.03.2018. She visited the premises of OP No.1 for replacement of the defective mattresses but the said OP did not give any response and rather she was made to wait. It was alleged that   she was called by the OP many times in the office but failed to replace the mattress and to pay the expenses of Rs.1500/- incurred by her on transportation.  It was further alleged that  the mattresses are still lying with the authorized dealer. As the Opposite Parties failed to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- as price of the mattresses including compensation for harassment and litigation expenses,  a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 3.                Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite Party/respondent No.1 did not enter appearance before the Ld. Lower Commission and suffered ex parte proceedings vide order  dated 25.04.2022.

                  Opposite Party No.2/respondent No.2 appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and contested the complaint.     In its written statement, OP No.2  stated that the  complainant has failed to bring on record any correspondence/documentary evidence to establish the fact  that she ever approached the answering Opposite Party about the defect in mattresses.  Further   the complaint being vague does not make out any ground for relief under the provisions of the CPA.  It was pleaded that the mattress in question were of the highest quality and fully complied with the assurances and specifications as provided for it. The complainant neither approached it before filing the complaint nor placed on record any document in this regard. It was further stated  that relationship between OP No.2 and its dealers are “principal to principal” basis and they cannot be held liable for any lapse on the part of the complainant.  It was further stated that from the vague and non-revealing  averments made in the complaint, it is difficult for them to comment about the product in question.  It was denied that the complainant had spent any amount on transportation or suffered any mental agony due to any act and conduct of OP No.2.  It was further stated that the complainant has failed to bring on record any such material/evidence to prove on record that the mattress in question are lying with the authorized dealer/workshop.  It was also denied that the complainant got the mattress in question insured at Chandigarh. The other  remaining allegations were denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, the Ld. Lower Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant  failed to prove her complaint regarding defect in the mattresses in any manner by way of expert evidence or otherwise qua the Opposite Parties and  dismissed the complaint,   as noted in the earlier part of the order. 

5.               Still dissatisfied with the  aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellant/complainant  for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the complaint by granting relief, as prayed for therein.   

6.              We have heard Counsel for the appellant and as well as respondent No.2, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.                  In the appeal, the ground taken by the appellant is that the Ld. Lower Commission has not considered the fact that the appellant has to purchase other mattresses from A-One Handloom, Sector-22-D, Chandigarh on 7.5.2018 which substantiated the fact that the mattresses earlier purchased were defective. It was stated in the appeal that the mattresses were not useable as  the same were defective in comfort being very hard to use  in sleeping.  It was further contended that the Ld. District Commission has not considered the harassment suffered by the appellant by making repeated visits to the shop of the respondent seeking replacement of the defective mattresses. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the finding given by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite just and does not call for any interference. 

8.              The perusal of the complaint as well as appeal reveals that the complainant/appellant  did not mention any defect in the mattresses in the complaint and in appeal it is only stated that the mattresses are not useable as are defective in comfort being very hard. However, the appellant has not brought on record any document to show that she ever made any complaint to the respondents regarding the defect in the mattresses. Respondent No.2 categorically denied in its reply and evidence about making any complaint to it about the defect in mattresses by placing on record any correspondent, email, representation or legal notice etc.  In appeal, placing on record a postal receipt allegedly issued to other respondent, more particularly without bringing on record any representation allegedly sent vide the said postal receipt, would not serve any purpose, much less to raise a presumption about the contents of the representation allegedly sent to the respondent. There is no evidence/document to prove that the mattresses are suffering from any manufacturing defect.  Even she did not place on record any receipt regarding returning of mattresses to the respondent.  The fact of returning the mattresses has categorically been denied by respondent No.2 but still no document or receipt has been placed on record. The appellant  being a law graduate and a practicing advocate cannot be expected to return the mattresses without obtaining any receipt.  The onus to establish manufacturing defect was on the part of the appellant/complainant but she failed to discharge the burden of proof. Without there being any cogent and convincing evidence, much less any allegation in the complaint about manufacturing defect in the mattresses, it can not be held that the mattresses in question are not useable, being hard and required to be replaced.

9.            Thus, we find no case made out to interfere in  the impugned order and grant any relief.  Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs and consequently the impugned order is upheld.   

 10.           Misc. application(s), if any pending, also stands disposed of as such.

 11.       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

12.             The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.