Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/556

M/S IND ROYAL FURNITURE COMPANY - Complainant(s)

Versus

kmr guru - Opp.Party(s)

Krishnan kutty nair

19 May 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 556/2014

 

JUDGMENT DATED: 19.05.2016

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.293/2011 on the file of CDRF,  Kottayam order dated :16.08.2014)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIALMEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1. M/s.Indroyal Furniture Company Pvt.Ltd

Angel Arcade, NH Bypass,

South Kalamassery,

Ernakulam District,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

 

2. Mr.Sugathan,

Managing Director,

M/s.Indroyal Furniture Company Pvt.Ltd

Angel Arcade, NH Bypass,

South Kalamassery,

Ernakulam District,

Rep.by its Director

 

(By Adv.Sri.Krishnan Kutty Nair)

 

                                                                             Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. KMR Guru,

          @ Rahim pookkadassery,

          Ayarkunnam, Kottayam,

          Kerala.

 

         

 

2. Osim India Ltd.,

          A Division of Paramount, Surgimed Ltd.,

          No.2/2, Langford Town,

Opp. To Elgin Apartments,

Near PAN Office Systems,

Bangalore – 560025,

R/by Mr. Sreekanth

 

(By Adv: Sri. G.S. Kalkura for R1 &

 Adv: Sri. J. Hudson Samuel)

 

JUDGMENT

 

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellants are opposite parties 1 and 2 in CC No.293/2011 in the CDRF, Kottayam.  The 1^st respondent complainant purchased from opposite parties 1 and 2 a U Dream OS 7880 chair paying Rs.4,31,550/- .It was manufactured  by the 3^rd opposite party.  The payment was on 03.09.2010 and the chair was delivered at the residence of the complainant.  It is alleged in the complaint that opposite parties 1 and 2 provided guarantee for the performance of the chair and assured its quality and durability.  During June 2011, the chair became defective. The matter was intimated to the opposite parties but there was no response.  The complainant sent E-mails on 6.6.2011 and 14.6.2011 to the 3^rd opposite party and in response a service engineer of the 3^rd opposite party visited the complainant’s residence on 17.6.11 and checked the chair.   He told the complainant that electronic components of the chair were not functioning properly and wanted to take few parts for service.  He took away that same without proper acknowledgement or receipt.  On 25.7.2011 the 3^rd opposite party sent e-mail stating that the damaged item was not covered by warranty and he had to pay Rs.50,000/- for rectifying the defect of the chair The complainant was told that the defect could have been caused by someone who tried to repair the chair without sufficient knowledge of the component. The complainant approached the consumer forum since notice sent through his lawyer elicited no response.

          2.      The 3^rd opposite party remained exparte.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended before the consumer forum that it was the duty of the 3^rd opposite party to do service and repair of the product.  The representatives of the 3^rd opposite party had attended the repairs promptly and communicated the matter regarding the non - availability of the warranty to the defective components.  No assurance regarding the quality of the product was given by the opposite parties. The warranty was provided by the 3^rd opposite party.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.

          3.      Before the consumer forum the complainant and the 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit.  Exts. A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the complainant.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 got marked no document in evidence.  The consumer forum by the impugned order directed the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the massaging chair and to restore it to perfect working condition failing which refund of the price of the chair was ordered.   Compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/- were also allowed.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are challenging the order of the consumer forum.

          4.      It is not denied that the complainant had purchased a costly massaging chair from opposite parties 1 and 2 the dealers.  The manufacturer of the chair was the 3^rd opposite party.  According to the complainant the product became defective during the warranty period of 1 year but opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to repair the same.  A service engineer of 3^rd opposite party inspected the chair and informed the complainant that the electronic component was not working properly.  Even as per the allegations in the complaint no receipt was given when the service engineer took the defective component for repair.  But the complainant was informed that the damaged component was not covered by the warranty provided and demand was made for payment of Rs.50,000/- for effecting repair.  So from the allegations in the complaint it appears that the above dispute led to the complaint.

          5.      But the 1^st respondent complainant never wanted the consumer forum to appoint an expert to see whether the costly chair had developed any manufacturing defect or defect in any specific component. Apart from the affidavit and counter affidavit, there is absolutely nothing to show what exactly was the defect in the massaging chair.  The main prayer of the complainant for replacement or value of the chair cannot therefore be allowed. Without specifying the defects,   it is also not possible to order curing of the defects. Apart from the allegations in the complaint that the costly chair developed defects, there is no evidence to prove of the allegations. Further this is not a case where the 3^rd opposite party neglected to respond to the request of the complainant. Disputes relating to payment of the value of the components to be replaced led to the complaint even according to the complainant.   But there is no material to uphold the claim of the complaint that the defective component was covered by warranty. There is absence of evidence to show which component developed defects.  So the consumer forum ordered rectification of defects without sufficient material before it so as to resolve the dispute finally.   It follows that the consumer forum ordered opposite parties to pay compensation without any justification.  Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order of CDRF, Kottayam in CC No.293/2011 dated 16.8.2014 is set aside.  The complaint shall stand dismissed.  The parties are directed to bear their costs in the appeal.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

1. RADHA               : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 556/2014

 

JUDGMENT DATED: 19.05.2016

 

 

 

nb