Punjab

Moga

CC/16/72

Yoginderpal Kansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Office Godrej - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Munish Majithia

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                                                                                              C.C. No. 72 of 2016

                                                                                                                                                  Instituted on: 18.02.2016

                                                              Decided on: 12.07.2016

 

Yoginderpal Kansal s/o Ram Bilas r/o H. No. 153, Anand Nagar, Opposite Telephone Exchange, Moga, District Moga.

                                                                             ……….   Complainant 

Versus

 

1.       Head Office Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., Pirozshanagar, Vikroli, Mumbai- 400097, Ph. No. 02267965656-5959.

 

2.       M/s Madan Gopal Amrit Lal, Godrej Dealer, opposite Petrol-pump, Court Road, Moga, through its Proprietor Vinay Kumar.

 

                                                                           ………. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:       Sh. Yoginderpal Kansal, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Vinay Gupta, Proprietor of opposite party no.1 and Authorized Representative for opposite party no.2.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against Head Office Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., Pirozshanagar, Vikroli, Mumbai and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) for directing them to return/pay the amount of Rs. 14,000/- on account of having manufacturing defect in office chair. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment, agony, damages and deficiency in service alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. till final decision of the case to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit or proper also be granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that this is 2^nd complaint of the complainant, as the first complaint was withdrawn by the complainant, due to compromise between the complainant and opposite parties. The complainant has purchased a office chair in the approximately sum of Rs. 14,000/- on 3.11.2013, which was manufactured by Godrej i.e. opposite party no.1 as opposite party no.2 is authorized dealer of Godrej Company, but due to the defect in the chair, the same was handed over by complainant to opposite party no.2 for repair on July, 2014 and at that time the chair was under guarantee against any manufacturing defect. So, the complainant was complelled to file the complaint against the opposite parties in this Forum. After the very first hearing of the complaint with the intervention of Dr. B.K. Bansal and Advocate Darshan Singh Gill, the matter was compromised and the opposite party no.2 assured the complainant that the chair will be handed over to the complainant after proper repair. After few days ago, the opposite party no.2 handed over the chair to complainant after repair, but after some days, the same problem in the chair was there, so the complainant again requested the opposite party no.2 to remove the problem and on this, opposite party no.2 sent his mechanic who changed some part of the chair and assured the complainant that now it is completely ok. After one month from this, the chair shown the same problem and there was also noise problem in the chair and when the complainant brought this problem into the notice of opposite party no.2 then he told that he will send mechanic and check the chair, but opposite party no.2 failed to send any mechanic. The complainant again requested opposite party no.2 to get the chair repaired. Thereafter in the month of December, 2015, the complainant again requested opposite party no.2 to solve the problem, but all in vain. Thereafter, opposite party flatly refused to solve the problem on the ground that the chair is out of warranty period. In this way, the opposite party has cheated the complainant and violated the conditions of compromise intentionally and willingly. Due to the abovesaid act and behaviour of opposite parties, the complainant has to face a lot of difficulty and hardship. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party nos. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their separate written replies.

                   Opposite party no.1 filed written reply, whereby they stated that the complainant purchased the said chair in the year 2011 and not 2013 against the cash memo no.4913 dated 23.09.2011. A proper bill and terms and conditions voucher of one year for the product was given to the complainant and he was well aware of the warranty conditions. Further stated that complainant approached opposite party no.2 with defect in the chair in the year 2014 which was after the warranty was over. However, opposite party no.2 still went ahead and repaired the chair for the complainant free of cost bearing the loss of Rs. 3200/- by changing its back and Hydarulic System. Further submitted that the said chair held a warranty of one year and the same was repaired free of cost although the warranty was over and the loss was beared by opposite party no.2. The complainant again using his influence of being Advocate filed another complaint on the same issue before the same Forum after the repair of chair was done to his satisfaction earlier which the complainant has stated on his own letter head attached by opposite party no.2 with the reply. How can a company give life-long warranty or guarantee of a product? Further submitted the complainant has not intentionally produced bill in the Court as the product is out of warranty. Further the complainant is not entitled for any relief demanded by him as the chair in question is out of warranty could not be set right due to his refusal to replace the defective part by paying price and his adamant attitude and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                Opposite party no.2 filed written reply stating therein that on 23.09.2011, the complainant purchased a chair model Kreena High Back vide a cash memo no. 4913 dated 23.09.2011. The chair was delivered to the complainant after taking its price of Rs. 11,600/- in cash. A proper bill alongwith terms and condition's brochure for warranty of one year for this product was also given to the complainant. The complainant never complained about this product for any of its defect till July, 2014, but however, the warranty of the product expired on 22.09.2012. In July, 2014 the complainant brought the chair with come defect and asked to repair the same under warranty. But answering opposite party refused to repair the same under warranty as its warranty was upto 22.09.2012 i.e. for one year from the date of sale. As per terms and conditions of the company, any furniture product manufacture by this company is provided with one year warranty from the date of sale. Answering opposite party told the complainant that his chair can be repaired at reasonable labour charges and the complainant have to bear the cost of the parts, if any, replaced with new one. However, the complainant threatened the answering opposite party to face problems, if he did not oblige him with replacement of this chair with the new one. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum and a notice was issued to answering opposite party by this Forum. The answering opposite party appeared with one of his friend to discuss the matter with the complainant. Hopefully he was known to complainant also. He intervened to avoid further conflict and asked him to repair the chair to the satisfaction of complainant without any cost although it is out of warranty. Keeping on high the respect of friendship, he agreed and repaired the chair by changing its complete back and hydraulic system, that costs him about Rs. 3200/- which he has spent from his own pocket without any fault. After repair of the chair, complainant issued a letter on this letter-pad that his chair has been repaired to his full satisfaction and promised him to withdraw the complaint filed against him in this Forum. Once the matter is decided to the full satisfaction of the consumer, it is presumed to be finished forever. Moreover, he intentionally is not producing the bill of this chair before this Forum as it is well known to him that this product is out of warranty since 23.09.2012. The all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant Yoginderpal Kansal tendered in evidence his two duly sworn affidavits Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2 and copies of documents Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-16 and closed the evidence. 

6.                In rebuttal, Sh. Vinay Kumar, Proprietor of opposite party no.1 and Authorized Representative of opposite party no.2 tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. OPs-1 and affidavit of Sh. Majaz Khan, Branch Commercial Manager, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Ex. OPs-2 and copy of General Power of Attorney Ex. OPs-3 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record placed on file.

8.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that on 03.11.2013, the complainant purchased a office chair from OP-2 for a sum of Rs.14,000/- which is manufactured by OP-1. The OPs gave one year warranty against any manufacturing defect in the said chair. In July 2014 there was some defect in the chair and same was handed over to OP-2 for repair but they did not repair it to satisfaction of the complainant, so the complainant filed a complaint against OPs in this Forum. On the very first hearing of the complaint with the intervention of common friends the matter was compromised. The OP-2 assured the complainant that the chair will be handed over to the complainant after proper repair. The OP-2 handed over the chair to complainant after repair. But after some days, the same problem arose and complainant requested to OP-2 to remove the problem and on it the OP-2 sent his mechanic who changed some part of the chair and assured the complainant that it is completely ok. Again after 1 month the chair shown the same problem and it brought into the notice of OP-2, who told that he will sent a mechanic and check the chair but he did not sent any mechanic and complainant again requested to OP-2 who again gave same answer again in December 2015, the complainant requested to OP-2 to sort out the problem but he linger on the matter and finally refused the request of complainant and told to complainant that now the chair is out of warranty and they cannot do anything, the OPs has cheated the complainant and violated the terms and conditions of compromise intentionally and willingly. Due to these acts of the Ops the complainant faced lot of difficulty and hardship. All these acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of the Ops. The OPs may be directed to replace the chair with new one along with compensation and litigation expenses.

9.                To controvert the arguments of the complainant, the Counsel for the OPs argued that it is wrong that complainant purchased the chair in dispute on 23.09.2013 for Rs.14,000/- in fact he purchased the chair from OP-2 on 23.09.2011 for Rs.11600/- against duly issued bill dated 23.09.201. The copy of the bill is Ex C-7, as per policy of the company, there was a warranty of one year on the product for any manufacturing defect. Copy of the warranty policy is Ex C-8. As per terms and conditions of the warranty policy, the warranty on the chair in dispute is expired on 22.09.2012, there was no defect in chair, the complainant only in July 2014 first time contacted with OP-2 regarding some defect in the chair and asked to repair, the same under warranty for which the OP-2 refused as the warranty expired on 22.09.2012 i.e. much prior from July 2014 and told to the complainant that his chair can repaired on the payment of cost of parts and labour. There was only one year warranty and not a life-long warranty on the product, the complainant threatened to OPs that they had to face problem if they do not obliged him with replacement his chair with new one, being an advocate. The complainant earlier filed a false complaint before this Forum and notice was issued to the OPs by this Forum, but with the intervention of some common friends to avoid further conflict, a compromise was effected between the parties and OP-2 agreed to repair the chair to the satisfaction of the complainant without any cost although the chair was out of warranty. OP-2 repaired the chair by changing its complete back and hydraulic system, and bear cost of Rs.3200/- from his own pocket without any fault. After the repair of the chair the complainant issued a letter on his letter pad that the chair has been repaired to his full satisfaction and promised to withdraw the complaint filed against OPs before this Forum. The copy of the letter dated 10.09.2015 issued by the complainant is Ex C-9. Once the matter is decided to the full satisfaction of the complainant, it is finished forever. The complainant cannot file fresh complaint on the same cause of action. The warranty on the product was only for one year and not a life-long warranty. The complainant intentionally not producing the bill before this Forum to prove his allegations that he purchased the chair on 03.11.2013. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant filed this complaint only to harass the OPs and to get undue benefit, the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

10.              We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by both the parties. The case of the complainant is that on 03.11.2013 he purchased a chair from the OPs and OPs gave one year warranty against the manufacturing defect in said product, In July 2014 there was some problem in the chair, he contacted to OP-2 to repair the defect but they did not repair the chair to this satisfaction within warranty period. Now they have flatly refused to repair the chair. In reply Ops submitted that the complainant never purchased the chair in November 2013 in fact he purchased a chair in September 2011 and there was one year warranty which expires on 22.09.2012 i.e. after one year and the complainant first time approached to them regarding the defect in the chair in July 2014 i.e. much after the expiry of the warranty period and they advised him as the warranty period expires, so he can get his chair repaired by paying repair charges, but he filed a complaint before this Forum in that complaint to avoid litigation, they compromise the matter and repaired his chair without any cost to his satisfaction and he issued a letter to this effect and withdraw the complaint. Now, he again filed false complaint against them and complainant cannot be allowed to agitate the same matter again and again. There was only warranty for one year on the product and not a life-long warranty.

11.              It is admitted case of the parties that there was a warranty of one year on the product for any defect. The complainant alleged that he purchased the chair on 03.11.2013 whereas the OPs alleged that he had not purchased the chair on 03.11.2013 but he purchased the chair on 23.09.2011 against the duly issued bill Ex C-7. The complainant failed to produce any evidence in his support that he purchased the chair on 03.11.2013, as per the version of the OPs the warranty on the said chair expires on 22.09.2012 and the complainant approached to them for remove the defect in July 2014 i.e. much after the expiry of warranty period. However, if we admit the version of the complainant correct that he purchased the chair on 03.11.2013, then in that case also the warranty of one year is expired on 02.11.2014. the complainant filed first complaint before this Forum regarding the defect in his chair on 03.08.2015, as per copy of the order dated 18.09.2015 filed by him in CC No.52 dated 03.08.2015 titled as Yogoinderpal Kansal Vs Head Office Godrej, i.e. much later after the expiry of warranty period and refusal by OPs to repair the chair in July 2014 as alleged by the complainant. It is further admitted case of the parties that in that complaint a compromise between the parties effected and as per compromise OP-2 repaired the chair in dispute of the complainant free of costs and as per compromise the complainant withdraw his complaint and gave a letter dated 10.09.2015 stating that OPs repaired his chair to his full satisfaction and handed over the chair to him after repair, even as per the version of the complainant the one year warranty on the chair was to be expired on 02.11.2014 i.e. after one year from the purchase of chair on 03.11.2013 and as per his own admission the Ops handed over the chair to him after repair to satisfaction of the complainant i.e. much after the warranty period, even he himself admitted in this complaint that after 10.09.2015, the Ops repaired his chair free of costs. There was only one year warranty on the product and not lifelong warranty. Now the complainant cannot re-agitate the same matter again and again, when the OPs repaired his chair to his satisfaction free of costs.

12.              From the above discussion, we found no merit in the complaint and the present complaint is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 12.07.2016

 

                                             (Bupinder Kaur)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                   Member                                President