CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 293/2011
Saturday, the 16th day of August, 2014
Petitioner : K.M.R. Guru@ Rahim Pookadassery,
Ayarkunnam,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Alex George)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Indroyal Furniture Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Angal Arcade, NH Bye pass,
South Kalamassery,
Ernakulam Dist.
Rep. its Managing Director
Mr. Sugathan.
2) Mr. Suagathan,
Managing Director,
Indroyal Furniture Co. Ltd.
Angel Arcade, NH Bye pass
South Kalamassery, Ernakulam.
(Adv. Mohandas K. Vilangara
& Adv. P. Krishnankutty)
3) OSIM INDIA,
A Division of Paramount,
Surgimed Ltd. No.2/2 Langford
Road, Langford Town,
Opp. Elgin Apartment,
Near PAN Office System-
Bangalore- 560025,
Rep. by Mr. Sreekanth
O R D E R
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 21/11/2011 is as follows.
The complainant purchased a U Dream OS 7880 chair for Rs.4,31,550/- from the 1st opposite party, manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. The payment of the chair was made on 03/09/2010 and the chair was delivered at the residence of the complainant by 1st and 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant, he opted to purchase the chair on believing the assurance made by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties regarding the guarantee of performance, warranty, quality and durability of the chair. According to complainant on June 2011, the chair became defective. The matter was intimated to the opposite party, but there was no response. On 06/06/2011 and 14/06/2011, the complainant sent an e-mail to the 3rd opposite party. On 17/06/2011, a Service Engineer of the 3rd opposite party had visited and checked the chair and informed that the electronic configurations are not working properly and they want to take few parts for service. He took few parts without giving proper acknowledgement or receipt. According to the complainant, on 25/07/2011 the 3rd opposite party sent an e-mail stating that the damage is not covered by warranty. So he has to pay Rs.50,000/- for rectifying the defect of the chair. The defect could have been caused by some one who tried to repair the chair without having the knowledge of circuit and wires. According the complainant, he never informed anybody else regarding the non-functioning of the chair and nobody has inspected or tried to repair the chair. The complainant on 23/07/2011 sent a lawyers notice to the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the opposite parties are not turn to replace the parts or repair the chair or make any further steps for repairing the chair till now. Hence this complaint.
The opposite parties 1and 2 filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. According to 1st and 2nd opposite parties, the terms and conditions governing the service is clearly stated in the invoice issued and the complainant was accepted it. So the service for the product will be the duty and liability or 3rd opposite party. The representatives of opposite party 3 were attended the complaint promptly and had communicated the matter regarding the non-applicability of warranty to the defects. According to 1st and 2nd opposite parties, they never gave any assurance regarding the quality of the chair. And the warranty was issued by the 3rd opposite party. According to 1st and 2nd opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them. And they pray for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Notice to 3rd opposite party was served, but they failed to contest the case.
Points for determination are
Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of the affidavits of the complainant and 1st
opposite party. And Ext.A1 to A10 documents from the side of complainants. Both sides filed argument note.
Point No.1
According to opposite parties 1 and 2,the Fora has no jurisdiction to consider this complaint because no cause of action as alleged, which had taken place in Kottayam District. According to the complainant, the chair was delivered at the residence of the complainant at Ayarkunnam by 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties had not denied the said averments. As per Section 11(2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum shall have the jurisdiction to entertain complaint within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. Since there is no dispute with regard to the delivery of the chair, so in our view part of cause of action was arosed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Fora, complaint is maintainable. Point ANo.1 find accordingly.
Point No.2
The purchase of the massaging chair is admitted by 1st opposite party. 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the dealers of the ‘messaging chair’ manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. The defects of the massaging chair also admitted by the opposite parties 1 and 2. Ext. A2 is the warranty card issued by the 3rd opposite party. From Ext.A3, A4, A5 are the e-mail communication issued by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party. From Ext.A3 document, it can be seen that the chair become defective from 06/06/2011 onwards. Ext.A7 is the lawyers notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Opposite party 3 has not replied to the Ext.A7 documents. From Ext.A6 e-mail issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant shows that they deputed their engineers to attend the chair on 07/07/2011. From the evidence on record, it can be seen that the chair purchased by the complainant from very early days of its purchase shows that the chair is having manufacturing defects. The opposite party 3, the manufacturer has not entered appearance or filed any version even after accepting the notice issued by this Fora. In our view, the act of the opposite party 3 in supplying a defective chair for such a huge price amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite parties 1 and 2, ie. sellers of the product by making false assurance and compelled a consumer to purchase an inferior quality chair. So, they cannot be evaded from their liability. When the complainant purchased the chair by paying its price to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, the complainant became a direct consumer of 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Definitely, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties got profit out of the sale of the chair. In our view, all opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Based on the above findings, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has sustained much mental pain, loss and suffering due to the purchase of the inferior quality chair. So, the complainant is to be compensated by the opposite parties. Point No.2 finds accordingly.
Point No.3
In view of the findings in Point No.1 and 2, the complaint is allowed.
In the result,
The opposite parties are ordered to rectify the defects of the messaging
chair, with perfect working condition. If not rectifying the defects as ordered, the opposite parties are liable to refund Rs.4,31,550/-, the price of the chair to the complainant. On refund of the amount opposite party has the liberty to take back the messaging chair,
The Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to
the complainant.
The opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the
complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If not complied as ordered, complainant is entitled 12% interest for the award amount from the date of order till realization.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1 : Copy of invoice No. KLM 589 dtd. 03/09/2010
Ext.A2 : Copy of warranty card no. 097908
Ext.A3 : Copy of e-mail complaint dtd.06/06/2011
Ext.A4 : Copy of e-mail complaint dtd. 14/06/2011
Ext.A5 : Copy of e-mail complaint dtd.19/07/2011
Ext.A6 : Copy of e-mail complaint dtd.25/07/2011
Ext.A7 : Copy of lawyers notice dtd.23/07/2013
Ext A8 : Series of postal receipts (3 nos.)
Ext.A9 : Postal card (3nos.)
Ext.A10 : Lawyers notice dtd.30/08/2011.
Documents of the opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
