BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 20th day of March 2015
Filed on : 11-04-2013
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.286/2013
Between
Premjith P.N. : Complainant
S/o. Narayanan, Parayil house, (By Adv. G. Sebastian,
Periyar Nagar, PN/49, 3rd floor, Vattoly Complex,
Uliyannoor Kadath kadavu road, Near High Court of Kerala
Pulinchodu, Combara Junction, Ernakulam
Thayikkattukara P.O., Pin-682 018)
Aluva-683 106.
And
Manager, : Opposite party
Indroyal Furniture company Pvt. Ltd., (By Adv. P. Krishnan kutty Nair,
Angel Arcade, N.H. Bye pass road, T.C. 27/1790, Vanchiyoor,
Kalamassery-682 022. Thiruvananthapuram)
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
The case of the complainant.
The complainant Mr. Premejith P.N., purchased a sofa set from M/s. Ind Royal Furniture Company Pvt. Ltd, Kalamassery as per invoice No. KLM/744, on 12-12-2008, on payment of price of Rs. 19,620/-. The sofa set was damaged within a period of 2 years and therefore communication was effected with the Kalamassery Show Room of the opposite party by the complainant as per registered letters. Accordingly a person from the opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and inspected the sofa set. The complainant was informed that he will have to spend
Rs. 13,000/- for getting the fabric changed. The complainant was not amenable to such a suggestion since he felt that spending an amount of Rs. 13,000/- to repair an article purchased for Rs. 19,000/- was not worthwhile. Dissatisfied by such a suggestion, the complainant again contacted the opposite party and demanded for the reimbursement of the entire purchase value on taking back the defective sofa set. The complaint was filed by the complainant on 11-04-2013.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a version contending inter-alia as follows:
3. The case of the opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is against the manager and not against the person who was the authorized representative of the company. The complaint is barred for non-joinder of the necessary parties. The complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant did not make any specific defect or short coming in the manufacturing of the furniture. The article purchased on 12-12-2008, had only the warranty of one year which had extinguished on 12-12-2009. The complainant has filed this complaint with ulterior motives at the instance of a business rival of the opposite party. The complainant did not approach the opposite party with a complaint. He had sent a communication through the consumer association after 4 years of purchase on 03-07-2012. There is no cause of action for the complainant to file the complaint and the complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleading the following issues arise for consideration.
i. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the purchase
amount and compensation as prayed for?
ii. Reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence in this case consisted of oral evidence of PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A6. The evidence of the opposite party marked as Exbt. B1 document and DW1 was examined. Heard both sides.
6. Issue No. i. As per Exbt. A1 the complainant Mr. Premjith P.N. purchased a Sofa set having five pieces made of PVC for the cost of Rs. 19,600/- which was purchased on 12-12-2008. Thereafter on 18-05-2012 after a period of 31/2 years the complainant had made a complaint to the opposite party stating that the hand rest of the single set sofa was broken and the fabric was damaged. Exbt. A2 letter was received by the opposite party as per Exbt. A3 postal acknowledgement. After the prior issuance of Exbt. A1 on 18-05-2012, the complainant had addressed the Consumer Guidance Research Society of India, Aluva on 14-06-2012 to help him in the situation. Exbt. A5 letter was issued by the Consumer Guidance Society, Aluva to the opposite party on the basis of the complaint given by the complainant, and it was only on the 3rd day of July 2012. Exbt. A6 series are the copies of photographs taken with regard to the allegedly defective articles. Exbt. A6 was marked subject to objection since it did not contain the negatives. The opposite party while being examined as DW1 having been refused to accept the authenticity and the ownership of the article contained in the photographs. Therefore Exbt. A6 can not be relied on as genuine.
7. Since things being so, it is crystal clear that the complainant did not have a case with regard to defective manufacturing, within the period of one year provided in the warranty produced as Exbt. B1. Exbt. B1 is a specimen copy of the warranty card which would give to show that the opposite party would give warranty to the product against any manufacturing defect at the time of sale and for an extra period of one year from the date of sale. It is also seen as per Exbt. B1 that the warranty does not cover the repair or replacement of glass/ mirrors, bulbs/lights, fading of cloth which are not manufactured by the company and specific reason is stated in Exbt. B1 warranty card that the covering materials of the sofa set having not been manufactured by the opposite party, and it does not cover any warranty at all. The complainant did not make a complaint within the period of limitation. He has filed this complaint only in the year 2013 in spite of the fact that there was alleged defect in the manufacturing of the sofa set detected in the year 2010 itself. The cause of action of the complaint would deemed to have rise in the year 2010. The defect alleged was noticed within a period of two years and after the period of one year. The complaint filed in the year 2013 is therefore found to be filed after the period of limitation prescribed under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. The issue is therefore found against the complainant and in favour of the opposite party, finding that the complaint is barred by limitation.
8. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. 1 against the complainant we find that this issue does not arise for consideration, as the complaint itself was found to be not maintainable.
3. Issue No. iii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant we find that the complaint can not be found in favour of the complainant and that it can only be dismissed for the reasons stated in answer to issue No. i. The complaint therefore stands dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20th day of March 2015
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits:
Ext. A1 : Copy of invoice dt. 12-12-2008
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 18-05-2012
A3 : A.D. card
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 14-06-2012
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 03-07-2012
A6 : Photo copies (sub to objection)
Opposite party’s Exhibits:
Ext. B1 : Warranty card
Depositions:
PW1 : Premjith P.N.
DW1 : Biju Raj R
