DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.401/2013

Sh. Subhash Verma                                        

S/o Late Sh. Ram Narain

R/o J-240, Ground Floor,

Saket, New Delhi-110017                                            ……Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Grover Furniture

          P-27, Malviya Nagar, Main Market

          New Delhi-110017

2.       Kurlon Limited

          F-6, Udyog Nagar Pirahgarhi

          Delhi-110087                                              ……Opposite Parties

                                                          Date of Institution          : 17.07.13                                                           Date of Order         :  16.01.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

Brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that  he had purchased a pair of Kurlon Ortho Mattresses manufactured by OP No.2 from OP No.1 and he paid Rs.14,388/- in cash vide bill No.226 dated 19.06.2011. After a short period, the mattresses sagged from the centre. He complained to OP No.2 and they replaced the mattresses with new pair. After a period of 3-4 months, he found the same problem in new mattresses. He again complained to OP No.2 on 22.06.12. After his complaint the representative of OP No.2 attended the complaint and reported the matter to his office. He received a letter from OP No.2 dated 26.06.12 wherein it was mentioned that the mattresses were found to be okay. The Complainant has stated that he was cheated and least satisfied with their product and has prayed that the necessary action may be taken against the OPs.

In the written OP No.1 has stated that the complaint had  visited his showroom on 19.06.2011 and purchased a two Kurlon Ortho Mattresses for an amount of Rs.14,388/- and alongwith the mattresses they gave him free gifts i.e. two Kurlon pillows and Kurlon bed sheet.  On 31.10.2011, the Complainant visited their showroom  and conveyed the problem that he was facing with the mattresses. They informed OP No.2 vide complaint No.388 dated 06.11.2011. On 12.11.2011, the executive of OP No.2, namely, Mr. Omkar visited the Complainant’s residence and inspected the mattresses. On 13.11.2011, the Complainant got the replacement letter from Kurlon Ltd. On 17.11.2011, the two defected mattresses were replaced by OP No.2 with a new pair of Kurlon Ortho Mattresses. After the replacement of the mattresses, there was no communication with the Complainant.

OP No.2 in the written statement has stated that the Complainant purchased two Ortho Mattresses from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.14,388/-. They received a complaint from the Complainant on 06.11.11. On 12.11.11 their technical staff Mr. Onkar Singh visited the Complainant’s residence and on 17.11.11 both the mattresses were replaced through OP No.1. On 22.06.12 they again received the complaint from the Complainant. Again they sent a technical staff Mr. Onkar Singh and after enquiry it was found that the mattresses were in good condition and were not having any manufacturing defect.  They issued a letter on 26.06.12 in this regard. Since mattresses were not having any manufacturing defect, therefore they could not replace the same. OP No.2 has stated that they are unable to understand as to why the Complainant is not satisfied with the mattresses.  OP No.2 has prayed that to save their reputation they are ready to replace the mattresses once again.

Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1 only. However, on 03.02.14 OP No.2 agreed to replace the mattresses.  OPs have been proceeded exparte vide order dated 04.03.14.

Complainant has filed affidavit in evidence and written arguments.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant had purchased two Kurlon Ortho Mattresses from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2. As there was a defect in the mattresses OP No.2 replaced the mattresses through OP No.1 on 17.11.11.  On 22.06.12 the Complainant again filed a complaint with OP No.2 that there was again the same defect in the mattresses. OP No.2 sent a technical expert to inspect the mattresses. After inspection, it was found that there was no manufacturing defect in the mattresses and they informed the Complainant on 26.06.12 (for the purpose of identification we mark the document as Annexure-A).

During the pendency of the case, OP No.2 was ready to replace the mattresses once again but the Complainant in his affidavit filed on 23.05.14 and written arguments dated 08.12.14 nowhere has mentioned that he wants to get replaced the mattresses or not. What is the defect in the mattresses is not made clear in the complaint or affidavit or in written arguments. Hence, the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 16.01.16.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                              (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT   

By D K Yadav