DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.158/18
Anukul Agrawal
R/o B-6, Green Park
New Delhi-110016. .…Complainant
VERSUS
M/s Jyoti Furnishers
J-1, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave
Near Reliance Fresh
New Delhi-110029.
M/s Sheela Foam Limited
C-55, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg
Delhi-110092. ….Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present:None.
Present:None.
ORDER
Date of Institution:04.06.2024
Date of Order :12.09.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking replacement of mattress; compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
- It is stated by the complainant that she had purchased mattress after making payment of Rs.36,400/- and supplied to the complainant on 22.01.2018. It is stated that this price includes two numbers of pillow and was inclusive of GST. Copy of the invoice is annexed as annexure P/1.
- It is stated that the complainant started using the mattress but after a few days felt uncomfortable realising that it was not firm enough and a ‘depression’ being caused. Complainant stopped using the mattress and lodged a complaint with OP-2. A technician was sent by OP-2 to check the quality and after checking the mattress the technician certified the mattress to be fine. Later an email communication regarding the quality check dated 27.02.2018 issued by OP-2 is annexed as annexure P/2.
- Complainant again started using the mattress but realised that there was a lot of discomfort when sleeping on it. Complainant then replied to email dated 27.02.2018 expressing his displeasure and sought their assistance in visiting the showroom of OP-1 to demonstrate that the mattress given to him as the sample was ‘firm’ the said communication is annexed as annexure P/3.
- OP in response sent an email dated 28.02.2018 and reaffirmed the quality as per warranty terms and did not accept any manufacturing defect to return the mattress. The said email is annexed as annexure P/4. Complainant then again wrote an email on 07.03.2018 to customer care of OP-2 raising his dispute about the firmness of the mattress and seeking its replacement. The said email is annexed as annexure P/5. No response was received, complainant again sent an email dated 15.03.2022, 23.03.2018 and thereafter received an email from the customer care team of OP-2 stating that they were arranging a revisit by Senior Manager. The said emails are annexed as annexure P/6-P/8.
- It is stated that though the representative of OP-2 visited the house of the complainant on 24.03.2018 but no response was received from OP-2. Complainant was supposed to write again on 06.04.2018 which was replied to by the customer care team on 10.04.2018 stating that there is no manufacturing defect and the mattress can only be replaced if there is any manufacturing defect. The said emails are annexed as annexure P/9 and P/10.
- It is further stated that complainant has visited many a times to the showroom of OP-1 but they have refused to return on the pretext the after sales is the liability of OP-2 i.e. the manufacturer.
- It is stated that on account of the act of the OPs complainant has suffered mental agony, physical and economical harassment and that both the OPs are liable for deficiency in service.
- In their reply, both the OPs have stated that the mattress selected by the complainant is one of the best product of OP-2 and that they have not received any complaint from any other customer with respect to that mattress.
- It is further stated that OP-2 manufactures quality mattress using safety quality foam which gives comfortable feel which is wrongly interpreted by the complainant as ‘depressed’.
- It is further stated by the OPs that the complaint of the complainant was attended to and it was certified that the mattress does not suffer from any defect. It is stated that as there was no defect they could not revert to the complainant with a solution. It is stated that the product taken by the complainant matches perfectly with the quality of standard of the mattress manufactured by OP-2. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- In rejoinder, averments of the complaint are reiterated. It is stated that the complainant and his family members felt uncomfortable using the mattresses due to sagging of the mattresses. It is denied by the complainant that the mattress is manufactured by using safety quality foam and that it given comfortable felt.
- Both the parties have filed respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record it is seen from the email sent by the complainant on 02.06.2018 that the complainant was unhappy with the firmness of the mattress. It is stated in that email that he had undergone surgery and the doctor had recommended a firm mattress but the mattress given by the OP is sagging at the back area. It is seen that complainant has not placed on record any picture depicting sagging neither any report from any expert certifying that the mattresses are not of a proper quality.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following:-
“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”
It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP. This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
