Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/72/2017

Mr.AR.Kamala Kannan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kurl on Enterprises Limited Rep by its authorized person - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

11 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  01.06.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on:  11.09.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

MONDAY  THE 11^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.72/2017

 

 

Mr.A.R.Kamalakannan,

S/o. Late.A.M.Radhakrishnan,

No.26, Durgai Avenue,

10^th Street,

Selavoyil, Chennai – 600 051.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. Kurl – On Enterprises Limited,

Rep by: It’s Authorized Person,

No. 194, Ground Floor,

Pycrofts Road, Royapettai,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

2.Sumangali Furniture,

Rep. The Manager,

New.No.151, Erunkacherry High Road,

Near. Dr.Ambedkar College,

Vysarpadi, Chennai – 600 039.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 16.06.2017

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. G.Viswanathan,

                                                                 K.Purushothaman  

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : Ex - parte

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the cost of the mattress and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of Kurl - on mattress and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the dealer of the   1^st Opposite Party. On 29.10.2016 the Complainant purchased a single basic Kurl-on mattress from the 1^st Opposite Party on payment of Rs.4,850/- for the use of his sick mother. After few weeks of purchase the stitches along the three sides of the mattress came out and the coir inside the mattress started to come out from the bed.

2. The Complainant immediately raised Complaint with the 1^st Opposite Party customer care on 09.12.2016. A technician Mr.Nandakumar visited and took photographs of the damaged mattress and assured for replacement of mattress, since the same was within the warranty period. However, there was no reply or replacement done by the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant mother also suffered due to damage mattress. Thereafter the Complainant issued legal notice dated 31.01.2017 and even after receipt of the same none of the Opposite Parties replied to him. The Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service in selling the defective product to the Complainant and hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to refund the cost of the mattress and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

          3. Though the Opposite Parties received notice to appear before this Forum on 17.07.2017 hearing and they did not appear and hence they were set ex –parte.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          The 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of Kurl – on mattress and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the dealer of the   1^st Opposite Party . On 29.10.2016 the Complainant purchased a single basic Kurl – on mattress from the 1^st Opposite Party on payment of Rs.4,850/-  under Ex.A1 cash bill for the use of his sick mother.  After few weeks of purchase, the stitches along the three sides of the mattress came out and the coir inside the mattress started to come out from the bed. On the Complaint to the 1^st Opposite Party customer care on 09.12.2016 one of his technicians Mr. Nandakumar visited the Complainant house and took photographs of the damaged mattress assuring for the replacement of the mattress. However, the 1^st Opposite Party did not make replacement of mattress. Ex.A2 photographs shows the damaged Kurl-on mattress . The Complainant also issued Ex.A4 notice to the Opposite Parties for replacement of mattress and the same was received by them under Ex.A5, Ex.A6 acknowledgement respectively and however they have neither replied to the notice nor replaced the mattress. The Opposite Parties remained absent and they were set ex-parte. Hence there is no contra evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the evidence of the Complainant has to be accepted. Therefore, it is held that the 1^st Opposite Party manufactured the defective mattress and the 2^nd Opposite Party sold the said defective mattress and therefore the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 has committed deficiency in service.

06. POINT NO:2

          The Complainant purchased the mattress for a sum of Rs.4,850/-. As the Opposite Parties have not replaced the defective mattress, the Complainant is entitled for refund the cost of the mattress of Rs.4,850/- from the Opposite Parties. The Complainant purchased the mattress for the use of his ailing mother. Due to defective mattress the Complainant and her mother suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be to appropriate to order a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation,  besides a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.4,850/- (Rupees four thousand eight hundred and fifty only) towards the cost of the mattress to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th day of September 2017.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 29.10.2016                   Original Sale Receipt

Ex.A2 dated  NIL                    Photo copies

Ex.A3 dated 29.03.2017                   Medical Prescription of Complainant’s Mother

                                                          

 

Ex.A4 dated  13.01.2017                  Legal Notice

Ex.A5 dated 17.01.2017                   Acknowledgement Card by Opposite Party-1

Ex.A6 dated 16.01.2017                   Acknowledgement Card by Opposite Party-2

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT