DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2022
Filed on: 01.11.2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C C No. 406/2019
COMPLAINANT :
SajyM.P S/o (late) M.A. Pathrose, Moonjely (House), Thuravoor (PO), Angamaly (Via), Emakulam District-683572
(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha, Pin-686 661)
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY :
M/s. Indraja, Furniture & Decor, No. 11/751, Seaport - Airport Road, Kakkanadu (PO). Emakulam, Kochi -682030 Represented by its Director Mr. Jagal Raj
(O.p rep. by Adv.P.Shrihari, Adv.Sunilkumar C.M., First Floor, Vivekananda Bhavan Building, Opp. Padma Theater, Ernakulam,
Kochi-35)
FINAL ORDER
D.B Binu , President
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant purchased Sofa Set (3+1+1) (Brown colour) from the second opposite party on 19.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.29,500/- only. The opposite party made the complainant to believe that the said Sofa Set is of best quality and it will remain intact for minimum 15 years and it has life time replacement warranty against any manufacturing defect including the quality of materials used. But the sofa set became defective immediately after the purchase. The wooden piece fitted under the cushion seat of Single Seater was broken within 4 months from the date of purchase. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party and he took it back to their shop and repaired the sofa set. But the remaining Sofas also became damaged due to its inherent manufacturing defects. The damages then noted are follows:
(I) The cushions used are of inferior quality. It compresses like anything to touch the lower wooden plate when someone sits on the Sofas.
(ii) The wooden frames fitted under the cushions are bent.
(iii) The legs of Sofas are also bent.
(iv) It creates noise of rubbing between wooden parts whenever someone sits on the Sofas.
The complainant immediately reported the matter to opposite party and insisted for replacement of the defective item, as promised by them at the time of purchase. But the opposite parties told excuses one after another to delay replacement. The complainant has personally reached the Shop on many occasions and repeated his demand for replacement. Finally, on 28.06.2019, the 2nd opposite party took the defective sofa set back from complainant home by goods carnage bearing Registration No KL 7 BX 8952. On that point of time also, the opposite party repeated their assurance for replacement of the defective item within 1 week. But the Sofa Set has not been replaced so far. When contacted the opposite parties in this regard, they initially replied that they are waiting for the approval from head office, but now they are saying that they have no authority to replace the defective item. The goods sold to the complainant is having inherent manufacturing defect. It is revealed as such from a plain view of the objects and more particularly on examining its defects. There was an assurance by the opposite parties to replace the item once any manufacturing defect is noticed during its life time. The complainant purchased the item for such a huge price by solely believing their assurance. The opposite parities have therefore committed unfair trade practice. The opposite parties have not so far replaced the defective items. Hence the complainant has lost confidence in the opposite party.
The complainant is therefore entitled for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.29,500/- with interest along with compensation and costs of this proceedings.
2) Notice:
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party and the opposite party received the notice, entered appearance and filed their version. Hence, opposite party is set as ex-parte.
3) Evidence:
The complainant has filed the proof Affidavit and 2 documents which are marked as Exbt.A1to A2.
Ext.A1 : True copy of Invoice No.1402 dated 19.11.2017 issued by
2nd opposite party
ii Ext.A2: Photographs showing the manufacturing defects of sofa set.
4) The following points are to be examined in this case:
I Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
II Whether the complainant proved any deficiency in service or “Unfair Trade practice” from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
III If so, whether the complainant is eligible to get any compensation from the opposite party?
IV Cost of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The Complainant fall under the ambit of the definition of a 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 2 (d) a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Moreover, the Complainants’ transactions would not fall within the purview of Commercial Purpose as the Complainant is the end user of the service and the services were for his personal use.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that complainant falls under the definition of "consumer", as defined under section 2(i) of the Act and has hired the "service" of the opposite party under section 2(ii) of the Act. Hence, the complaint is maintainable as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Re: (Point No. I).
We have also noticed that Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party and the opposite party received the notices but did not file their version. Hence the opposite party set ex-parte. marked as Exhibit. A-l and A-2. All in support of their case.
The complaint is regarding the supply of inferior quality sofa set. The evidence in this complaint consists of the Exhibits A-1 and A-2 marked from the side of the complainant.
The complainant submits that the opposite party had not denied the surrendering of the sofa set and they have not adduced any evidence to prove that they have replaced it since the defective product is in the possession of the opposite party the burden is on their part to prove that the sofa set is free of any defect. The opposite party had neither filed any version nor adduced in any evidence to challenge the case of the complainant. The opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-parte order passed against it.
The complainant has produced Exbt.A1and A2 showing Ext.A-1: True copy of Invoice No.1402 dated 19.11.2017 issued by the opposite party and Ext.A-2: Photographs showing the manufacturing defects of sofa set. The complainant had incurred the loss of Rs.29,500/-. These facts remain undisputed. In the absence of contra evidence, we are not in a position to disbelieve the contentions raised by the opposite party.
The opposite party conscious failure to file their written version in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. The Hon’ble NC held a similar stance in its order cited 2017(4) CPR page 590 (NC).
We find the issue Nos.(II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parity is liable to compensate the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
The Opposite Party shall refund the amount of Rs.29,500/- to complainant, along with interest within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.
The Opposite Party shall pay the complainant Rs.20,000/- as compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party.
The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Ambily transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this 26th day of October 2022
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Exhibits
1) Ext.A1 : True copy of Invoice No.1402 dated 19.11.2017 issued by
2nd opposite party
2) Ext.A2: Photographs showing the manufacturing defects of sofa set.
Opposite parties exhibits : Nil
C.C.406/2019
Order dated 26.10.2022
