ORDER

SRI SHRINIDHI.H.N., MEMBER

1. This Complainant filed this complaint under Section 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 against the opposite party along deficiency in service seeking direction to the OP to repair or replace the defective Sofa along with chairs 02 numbers or refund of the amount paid by the complainant Rs.31,998/-.

2.   The brief facts of the case is as follows: 

             The complainant ordered for WALTER LEATHER SOFA 03 SEATER DARK TAN on the OP on 08.03.2023 on-line, who was stated to be offering extensive range of furniture and kitchen made. Accordingly, this item was delivered at the residence of the complainant by the OP on 15.03.2023. The price of the item, after discount is stated as Rs.31,998/- and it was paid by the complainant through Credit card on 08.03.2023 by placing the orderand the complainant has produced the Tax invoice and delivery order as Annexure-A &B.

3. The said furniture is stated be of one year warranty and no warranty card issued by OP and it was assured that any  warranty claim can be placed with the customer service of the OP. It is the case of the complainant that after 07 months of purchase, the furniture started developing multiple crack and the centre stitched area of the sofa and Seating cushion, the photos of defective furniture are produced as annexure-C. It is contended by the complainant when he complained to the customer service, a technician was deputed who took picture/ photos on 20.11.2023 and subsequently the complainant called him on his mobile and 21.11.2023 it was conveyed to the complainant that there is no manufacturing defect and warrantee cannot be honoured. In  support of the complaint and reply of the OP details of email communication between the parties has been placed by the complainant as Annexure-D and hence the prayer of the complainant as the OP has denied to honour the warrantee clause as assured.

4. On admission of complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to OP on 05.01.2024  and same was served on the OP on 17.01.2024. The OP has filed their version and the same is as under:      

The OP in their version have denied the allegations of defectin the product while accepting the other facts of payment of Rs.31,998/- towards product and copy of the invoice are also produced as annexure-R1 & R2. The OP submits that the complainant was provided with link of warrantee card and user manual and by completing the entire transaction he has accepted the terms and conditions of sale and user manual. The OP claims that when it was delivered at the residence of the complainant was completely in good condition without any defect, which is proved by the fact that he has accepted the product without raising any deficiency in the product. The OP goes on to add further that the complainant is governed by the terms of the warrantee which is binding between both the parties and main contention of OP is that the product has not been used in the prescribed manner as per the user manual. It is submitted that the product is specifically designed for particular functionality on request, specific way of use and any deviation would result in to damage to the product. The OP places reliance on the conditions in theuser manual and any deviation cannot be acceptedand the warrantee covered gets cancelled for improper use. The OP certifies itself that there is no manufacturing or quality deficiency in the product by producing annexure-R3 which are the photographs taken by the OP. The OP also filed copy of the user manual marked as R4, in which the warrantee terms are prescribed at sub-clause-10 on page-25 which states that “Warrantee shall not apply if the damage caused to the product is due to factors such as natural wear and tare, improper and inadequate maintenance, wrong handling of product etc. and pleads that the  damage caused is due to the complainant’s mishandling or improper use of the product and denies the warrantee as per this clause” and OP further prays for dismissal of the complaint as there is no negligence or defect in the product or unfair trade practice by them.

5. The complainant files chief examination affidavit along with documents marked as C1 to C4, which are the Tax invoice, Delivery order and Photographs of Defective furniture and copy of the email correspondence between the complainant and OP, in which request of the complainant for replacement is denied.   The OP has filed evidence by way of sworn affidavit and the no other documents are submitted in support of the contentions taken in the version which are Tax invoice as R1 &
   R2, R3 is photographs of furniture, R4 is the User Manual.

6. Heard the arguments submitted by the complainant and the OP.   The matter is posted for  orders.

7. Considering the contentions and documents filed by the complainants  and OP, the following points arise for consideration by the commission are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitled for the relief sought?
2. What order?

8. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1              :       Partly Affirmative

Point No.2              :       As per final order

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:-   From the facts of the case  it is noticed that the complainant has purchased a Sofa with nomenclature WALTER LEATHER SOFA 03 SEATER DARK TAN on 08.03.2023 and has paid sum of Rs.31,998/- through his credit card which is supported by the tax invoice. The case of the complainant is that the furniture is with a warrantee of one year and the warrantee card has not been issued and on enquiry it was confirmed that no separate warrantee card is needed and any claims in this regard can be placed with the customer service of the OP. It is the case of the complainant that within a period of 07 months of purchase he could see multiple cracks in the Centre stitched area of the Sofa and on placing the complaint with the OP customer care a technician was deputed who took pictures of the defects on 20.11.2023. However,  on 21.11.2023 the complainant was called on his mobile and he was informed that the warranty cannot be honoured and there is no manufacturing defect as per the report of the technician and hence alleges deficiency in service and prays as per the prayer portion in the complaint for either to replace the furniture or repair the furniture or to refund the amount of the same by the OP as the furniture is well within the warrantee period.

10. The OP denies the allegation of any manufacturing defect on their part and has stated that the defects which have occurred is due to the improper usage on the part of the complainant. It is contended that the complainant has been provided a user manual in their Website and as per which the warrantee is excluded for any damage to the product arising out of complainant’s own negligence or improper use of the product. The copy of the User Manual is produced by the OP as R4 and OP draws our attention to page-25 of the user manual which under sub-clause-10 specifies that “Warrantee shall not apply if the damage caused to the product is due to factors such as natural wear and tare, improper and inadequate maintenance, wrong handling of product etc. and pleaded that the damage caused is due to the complainant’s mishandling or improper use of the product and denies the warrantee as per this clause”. It is also worthwhile here to mention that at page-55 of the user manual certain do’s and don’ts have been prescribed which include not to spray cleaning material, not to sun dry, not allow kids to jump, avoid sitting in the corners for a long time, not to place sharp objects and the like. After going through this user manual commission observes that the conditions prescribed are all beyond one’s imagination and the conditions imposed a total restriction of the use of the product purchased by the consumer/complainant. Such conditions appear to be ridiculous and are not practically possible and defeat the very purpose of purchase of such costly furniture. Therefore, imposing such conditions in the usage and claiming that the same are applicable in case of any defect in the furniture or its foam and the top cover of the furniture by the OP cannot be accepted, which is the only main contention taken by the OP in this case.

11. In view of the above discussion, the commission comes to the conclusion that the complaint succeeds. Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 in Partly affirmative.

12. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the forgoing reasons,  we passed the following:

                                       ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part.
2.  The OP is hereby directed to pay/ refund a sum of Rs.31,998/- being the cost of the furniture by taking return of the sold furniture from the complainant along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of payment and to pay a sum of  Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
3.  The OP shall comply this order within 45 days from the date of this order.
4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 29^th June  2024)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

     (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)                   (SHRINIDHI.H.N)           

                   MEMBER                                      MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Venkatesh Krishnan -Who being the complainant.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit:

Sri Ravichandran.P-Who being Concept Managerof OP.

     Documents produced by the OP:  

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

     (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)                 (SHRINIDHI.H.N)             ​

                 MEMBER                                           MEMBER