Kerala

Idukki

CC/147/2020

Mathew Kuruvila - Complainant(s)

Versus

manumax life style furniture - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 23/10/2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 20^th day of July 2022

Present :

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO147/2020

Between

Complainant : Mathew Kuruvila,

Peringettu House,

Chandy's Residency, Chithirapuram,

Pallivasal, Munnar,

Represented by the Authorised Person.

(By Adv.Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . Manumax Life Style Furnitures,

Opposite RRS NH Bye Pass Road,

Near Obronmall 682 024.

2 . Kohler India Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

2^nd Floor H 138, 6^th A Cross Road,

Near Chairman orchards RMV extension,

Sadasiva Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka.

(By Adv.Praveen Kumar)

 

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

This complaint is filed raising the following allegations against opposite parties.

.
1 . The complainant is running a hotel in the name and style of Chandy's residency at Pallivasal, Munnar. The first opposite party is the dealer of the build ware items manufactured by the second opposite party.

 

2 . The complainant purchased 44 numbers of semi recessed lavatory for Rs.1,99,825/-. The product was supplied by the first opposite party at the complainant's premises at Pallivasal. The complainant was told the products carry 10 years onsite warranty. During the currency of warranty in 2017, the opposite

(Cont....2)

 

-2-

 

parties re-placed 7 pieces and in 2018, 3 pieces were also replaced. Now, the remaining pieces are also damaged. Cracks appeared on the semi recessed lavatory (wash basins). In spite of repeated demands of the complainant the opposite parties did not care to replace the wash basins.

 

3 . The refusal to replace the semi- recessed lavatory is gross deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the wash basins free of cost or to get the money refunded.

 

4 . Since the complainant purchased for own use and not for sale, the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. Due to the defect of the product the complainant sustained loss and the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation. The complainant claim Rs.1 Lakh as compensation.

 

5 . The cause of action for this complaint arouse on 20/06/2013, on that day the complainant purchased the semi recessed lavatory and the first opposite party supplied the same at Pallivasal ad continuously thereafter in Munnar and Adimali Kara in Idukki district is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum.

 

6 . Reliefs claimed in the complaint are valued at less than Rs.2 Lakhs and no fee is payable.

 

Hence he prayed for the following reliefs.

 

A . The opposite parties may be asked to replace the damaged semi recessed lavatory free of cost with the same pattern defect free product at the expenses of the opposite parties or asked to pay the price with interest.

 

B . The opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation.

C . The opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.

D . Such other relief and deemed just and equitable also may be granted.

 

(Cont....3)

-3-

 

 

Notice sent to first opposite party returned with postal acknowledgement “addressee left”. Paper publication was ordered to be made. But no steps were taken by complainant. Second opposite party filed detailed written version and produced copy of 4 documents.

 

 

Main contentions raised are as under:-

 

1 . Second opposite party denies and refute the allegations and averments made in the complaint as being false, ill – conceived save and except those which are matter of record and except those which are specifically admitted and in respect of other contents, complainant is put to strict proof of the same.

 

2 . Complaint is totally false, frivolous, vexatious and is based on absolutely incorrect facts. Complaint is devoid of merit and it is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. Complainant do not fall under the category of 'Consumer'. Hence this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. This Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint as the complainant is no longer a 'Consumer' as defined in the CP Act.

 

3 . A person who purchases goods for commercial purpose is not a 'Consumer' and his rights as a consumer is forfeited. Second opposite party relies on order of Hon'ble National Commission in Meera Industries Howrah Vs. Modern Constructions, Howrah, II (2009) CPJ 402 (NC) in which it was held “In so far as the purchase of goods, which is covered by Section 2(1)(d)(i) is concerned, a person who purchases goods for commercial purpose is not a Consumer”. This was constantly upheld in various judgements, such as Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust Vs. Toshniwal Brothers (Bombay) Pvt Ltd 2000(1) SCC 512, in which Apex Court ruled that “ For any commercial purpose are wide enough to take in all cases where goods are purchased for being used in any activity directly intended to generate profit.”

 

 

 

(Cont....4)

-4-

4 . On 20/06/2013, as per the invoice complainant has brought 44 numbers of Forefront Semi-Recessed Lavatory, SGL Hole worth Rs.1,99,825/- along with several other products ie. 7 numbers Escale Wall-Hung Toilet with Quiet close seat and cover and 44 numbers of Via Wall Hung WC with Seat White from the first opposite party. The products were supplied by first opposite party at the complainant's premises at Pallivasal along with warranty card duly acknowledged by complainant. Second opposite party produced copy of invoice No.244 dated 20/06/2013 issued by first opposite party to the complainant is produced with written version.

 

5 . When the forefront Semi-Recessed Lavatory, SGL Hole shown problem with Crack-Hairline Crack, same was replaced on noticing manufacturing defect. The products being in the warranty period of 5 years as guaranteed for commercial purpose, first opposite party supplied fresh replacement for the damaged goods. Thereafter is is falsely mentioned that first opposite party had supplied 8 units in 2017 against 7 units and further supplied 3 units of 18571T - 1-0 (Reach vanity). Top 105 in 2018 not the 11479T-M1-0 Forefront Semi Recessed Lavatory single hole rather first opposite party supplied 8 units of which 7 was 11479T-M1-0- Forefront Semi- Recessed Lavatory and one unit of 18571T-1-0 (Reach Vanity). Further in 2018, first opposite party had replaced 3 units of 18571T-1-0 (Reach vanity Top 105).

 

6 . That in due course in 2018, one call was registered on 12/06/2018 for same cracking – hair line crack issue but since customer didn't produce the invoice, the claim was rejected. In 2020, three calls were registered vide 07/09/2020, 05/09/2020 & 19/08/2020 but the request for replacement was rejected as the products were out of the warranty period of 5 years. That opposite parties had tried to convince the complainant/customer giving all the official warranty policy documents along with the legal advice, but the complainant didn't budge and filed a fallacious complaint mentioning that at the time of purchase the first opposite party had told him that the warranty for the products lasts up to 10 years

 

7 . That it is pertinent to mention that despite duly receiving the warranty policy card at the time of purchase, the complainant has furiously refused to accept the fact that the warranty card contains a clear -cut mentioning of the said time

(Cont....5)

 

-5-

 

period for all the commercial products that is to be bought from the dealer ie, first opposite party and the manufacturer ie., second opposite party. It has been reiterated over phone calls, emails and messages but the same was refused to be accepted by the complainant.

 

8 . The averments contained in para 1 of the complaint are matter of record.

 

9 .The averments contained in para2 are vehemently denied for being wrong, false and concocted. It is denied that at the time of purchase, the complainant was told by the first opposite party that there is a warranty for a period of 10 years fr the products he had bought. That in fact, there was a warranty card attached with the products where it was clearly mentioned that the warranty period for VC products in commercial site are 5 years and therefore it is not qualified for warranty replacement after the expiry of the said period. That the same information in the form of the warranty card was duly accepted and received by the complainant at the time of purchase of the products and therefore the requests made for replacement after passing of 5 years of warranty were rejected as the same was never intended or promised to be covered by the opposite parties. That was also informed to the complainant that if he has any document in support of his claim and contrary to our statement that could be presented, then in that case is ready to consider the same. However, no such document was produced by the complainant till date. That further it is pertinent to mention that it is just not the second opposite party but every company has the same rule of offering 5 years of warranty to its customers for all its commercial properties. That further the number and name of the replaced items as mentioned in the complaint is also false and misleading as the first opposite party had supplied 8 units in 2017 against 7 units that is falsely mentioned in the complaint and had supplied 3 units of 18571T -1-0-REACH VANITY TOP 105 in 2018 (not the 11479T-M1-0-forefront semi recessed Lav. Single hole) already mentioned above. Moreover it is pertinent to mention that the complainant who had purchased goods for commercial purpose is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 and his rights as a consumer is forfeited.

 

 

(Cont....6)

 

-6-

 

10 . That the averments contained in para 3 are vague and misleading therefore vehemently denied. That the refusal to replace the products are not the gross deficiency in the service as the warranty fr the replacement of damaged products got exhausted with the completion of period of 5 years as was duly mentioned in the warranty card of the products purchased. That, therefore, the second opposite party here is under no objection to replace the products after the said time period, hence complainant's claim for compensation should outrightly be denied.

 

11 . That the averments contained in para 4 are vague and misleading therefore ardently denied. It is denied that the products purchased by the complainant were for his own use which would ultimately make him eligible for warranty period of 10 years for its products. That in fact, the products bought by the complainant were to be used in a commercial setup of Hotels and Resorts which in turn make the products a commercial property. That only the products bought for the residential purpose are given a warranty for a period of 10 years, which clearly is not the case in the present situation. That since the products bought by the complainant have completed its 5 years warranty period, therefore my client is not liable to pay any kind of compensation to the complainant. That the complaint filed by the complainant is false.

 

12 . That the averments contained in para 5 are vehemently denied. That based on the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for the compensation and that no cause of action ever arose against second opposite party.

 

13 . That in reply to the averments contained in para 6 it is submitted that for the reason as stated and explained above complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

 

14 . That complainant's / customer's only sinister motive behind filing this false and fictitious complaint to get the product replaced free of cost is premised on his own whims and fancies and gain unlawful gain by seeking compensation.

 

(Cont....7)

-7-

15 . No cause of action has accrued to complainant for filing the present complaint before this Hon'ble Forum. However, this opposite party has a prima -facie case against the complainant. The complainant has not been able to establish any deficiency in service or consumer dispute as contemplated under the said Act.

 

Hence second opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost and compensatory costs. It is also prayed that complainant may be directed to refrain from undertaking any vilifying campaign against opposite parties and maligning their reputation.

 

Notice issued to first opposite party returned unserved with postal endorsement “addressee left”. Hence paper publication was ordered. But complainant did not take steps. Second opposite party contended that purchase is for commercial purpose and the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer. On a perusal of complaint, it is revealed that purchase of lavatories and other items was for commercial purpose. Hence preliminary issue is raised as follows.

 

Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission?

 

Heard the counsel.

 

We have examined the contentions and perused records. Counsel for complainant argued that purchase was for own use and not for sale. It is mentioned in the complaint. Hence complainant is a consumer as defined in the Act. Complainant has produced copy of purchase invoice only. Warranty card was not produced. Second opposite party filed copy of warranty card and invoice. On going through the invoice it is seen that complainant purchased 7 numbers Escale Wall -Hung Toilet with Quiet close seat and cover, 44 numbers Via Wall Hung WC with Seat White and 44 numbers of Forefront Semi- Recessed Lavatory, SGL Hole as per invoice No.244 dated 20/06/2013. Nobody would purchase these much items for own domestic use. Bulk purchase itself reveals that it is for commercial purpose. It is the specific case of second opposite party that purchase was for commercial purpose and they admitted the replacement of certain items on satisfying the manufacturing defect. It was within the warranty period of

(Cont....8)

-8-

5 years. On going through the warranty chart, it is seen that 10 years warranty is offered for residential use and 5 years warranty offered for commercial use. Complainant utterly failed to establish that purchase is for own use.

 

In these circumstances we are of the concrete opinion that purchase was for commercial purpose and therefore complainant would not come under the definition of 'consumer' as defined in S.2(7)(i) of CP Act, 2019. So this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Hence the issue is found against the complainant.

 

In the result, complaint is rejected as not maintainable before this Commission. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

 

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 20^th day of July 2022.

 

 

 

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Nil

Forwarded by Order

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR