BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 415/2021 Filed on 30/12/2021

ORDER DATED: 30/06/2019

[Order is reviewed suo-moto dated 06/02/2023, order dated 30/06/2022]

C.C.No. 415/2021 Filed on 30/12/2021

ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

The complainant has purchased a Queen Size Cot for consideration of Rs.12,000/- vide bill dated 21/10/2019 from the opposite party.  The complainant was attracted by the advertisement of quality and durability, of the product, he visited the showroom of the opposite party, where the staffs of the opposite party apprised the complainant about the quality of the cot and assured that it has 10 year warranty.  Based on the quality and durability assurance received from the opposite party, the complainant purchased the cot.  On 09/10/2021, the cot was damaged to such an extent that there were holes and breaks in the cot and the defect had caused heavy back pain and shoulder pain to the complainant. After inspecting the damaged cot, the complainant has a reasonable belief that the plywood used in the cot was of low quality.  The complainant informed the same to the Malappuram Head Office of the opposite party as well as Killippalam showroom.  As there was no response from the opposite party, the complainant sent an email on 13/10/2021 detailing all these facts.  The complainant had also reached out to the opposite party through available mobile numbers as well as WhatsApp.  Despite continuous requests, the opposite party had not taken any steps to rectify the defects of the product.  From 09/10/2021, the product is unusable and no service was provided by the opposite party to make the product usable.  Not providing service to the product, which is in unusable condition, shows the unprofessional and irresponsible attitude of the opposite party, amounting to unfair trade practice.  The opposite party has not taken any steps to rectify the defects of the product.  So a legal notice dated 28/10/2021 was sent by the complainant to the opposite party.  It is pertinent to note that even the legal notice did not invoke any positive response from the opposite party.  The complainant has taken all possible steps to avail services from the opposite party to rectify the defects in the product.  The opposite party gave implied warranty to the product by promising that they will provide service for 10 years for any defects in product, but the product was damaged within 2 years of its purchase and no service was provided even after multiple requests including legal notice, hence this complaint.    

After accepting the notice the opposite party was absent and set ex parte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents.  Ext.P1 to P5 marked.

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

issues No.1&2:- As per Ext.P1 it can be seen that the complainant purchased the cot from opposite party for an amount of Rs.12,000/- on 21/10/2019.  Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 shows that the complainant sent messages to opposite party.  But the opposite party was not taken any steps to rectify the defects of cot.  As per Ext.P4 the legal notice sent to the opposite party.  No reply was sent by opposite party.  The cot was damaged within two years and the opposite party gave implied warranty of 10 years for any defects in product.  The case of the complainant is unchallenged.  The opposite party has not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant.

In view of the above discussions we find that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. 

In the result complaint is allowed.  We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Only) as the price of the cot and pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings  to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.            

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 30^th day of June,  2022.

(Order dated 30/06/2019 is reviewed suo-moto)

There occurred an error apparent on the face of the record, hence the order dated 30/06/2019 is suo-moto reviewed as 30/06/2022.It was inadvertently omitted to include counsel of complainant in the cause title.So the order dated 30/06/2019 is reviewed by changing the date of order as 30/06/2022 including counsel of complainant Adv.P.Hariharan in the cause title.

The reviewed order will be treated as one which was passed as on 30/06/2022.

R

C.C. No. 415/2021

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

PRESIDENT