BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR
Complaint No.419 of 2018
Date of Instt. 08.10.2018 Date of Decision: 20.04.2021
Vinod Kumar Tahim, aged 61 years, S/o Sh. Durga Dass, R/o H.No. 423/17, Krishna Nagar, Near Gurdwara, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Cheap Matting House Pvt. Ltd, G.T Road, Near Jyoti Chowk, Jalandhar City through its Manager/Incharge etc.
2. M/s Ashoka P.U Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd., V-6, Near Agrasen Park, Rampur Garden, Bareilly 243 001, U.P India, through its Managing Director/Manager Incharge etc.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. A.P.S Pathania, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh.V.P Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the OPs.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against OPs on the averments that OPs are dealing with the business of the sale of mattress. OP no.1 is dealing with the sale purchase of the mattress manufactured by OP no.2. The complainant went to the showroom of OP no.1 near Jyoti Chowk Jalandhar and requested them to advice for a good quality of mattress as he went to purchase one pair for his own use. As per representation of OP no.1 that mattress manufactured by OP no.2 under the name of Coirtuff and employees of OP no1 advised him that the mattress which are manufactured and sold by OP no.2 are of high quality and provide a good sleeping and better lifestyle in the bedroom. On the assurance of OPs, he purchased one pair of mattresses by making the payment of Rs.11,000/- vide receipt dated 05.03.2015 issued by OP no.1 issued by OP no.1. In the said invoice of OP, it was written that said mattresses are of high quality and it has 11 years of guarantee. Copy of guarantee card regarding the coir mattresses also supplied to him. Within a period of three years of its purchase, said mattresses were found uneasy though the complainant was advised that he will experience of a good sleep and good quality of bedroom, but complainant immediately made the complaint by visiting the shop of OP no.1 on 06.04.2017 and he was attended by Mr. Jimmy employee of OP no.1. On 09.05.2017, complainant gave a call to Mr. Tarachand but his phone was not attended by him. In the month of June, 2017 Mr. Gaurav representative of OP no.2 visited the house of the complainant and after inspecting the mattress he admitted that the mattresses are uncomfortable and are unable to sleep on the same. In this regard, mail was also sent to OPs on 14.06.2018 addressing his grievances into the matter. In this regard, OPs did not deal with the complaint nor they changed the old mattresses with the new one nor they refunded the amount. On 16.07.2018 the complainant again gave his representation by mail to OPs and also gave reminder that his mattresses have never been replaced nor his grievances have been heard. On 18.07.2018 the complainant again requested OPs but OPs have not considered his grievances. The medical condition of the complainant is not good. He has suffered back pain and disk problem and regarding this he has take the medicines from Orthonova Hospital Due to act and conduct of OPs, he has filed the present complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- for providing faulty mattresses by OPs.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant. The complaint is ex-facie, misconceived and devoid of any merits. The complainant has filed the complaint with the sole motive of pressurizing and harassing the OP. On merits, it was averred that it is wrong that complainant purchased one pair of mattresses by making the payment of Rs.11,000/- vide receipt dated 05.03.15 issued by OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Abhishek Dhamija Sales Representative of OP no.1 as Ex.OP-1/A on the record. Ex.OP-1 is authority letter.
4. We have heard learned counsel for OPs and have perused the record placed on the file.
5. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA on the record. He testified his grievances in the affidavit in support of his case. He alleged deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 are photographs of mattresses in question. Ex.C-5 is copy of guarantee card in which period of guarantee has been mentioned as three years. Ex.C-6 is copy of bill of Rs.11,000/- for purchase of mattresses. Ex.C-8 is email dated 14.06.2018 addressed to OPs by complainant regarding replacement of one pair mattress elegance. Ex.C-9 is email dated 16.07.2018 addressed to OPs by complainant regarding replacement of one pair mattresses elegance. Ex.C-10 is email dated 18.07.2018 addressed to OPs by complainant. Ex.C-12 receipt of Rs.2000/- on account of MRI of complainant from Guru Nanak Missions Hospital Jalandhar. Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14 are prescription slip. Ex.C-15 is copy of report of Radio diagnosis. Ex.C-17 is copy of OPD Slip. Ex.C-18 is copy of prescription slip. Ex.C-20 and Ex.C-21 are payment receipts. Ex.C-22 is copy of aadhar card of the complainant.
6. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OPs relied upon affidavit of Abhishek Dhamija Sale Representative of the OPs as Ex.OP-1/A on the record. This witness denied any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
7. It is an established fact that the complainant purchased mattresses from OP no.1 on 05.03.2015. This fact is proved from bill vide no.6323 dated 05.03.2015 for payment of Rs.11,000/-. The guarantee of the mattresses in question was given by OPs for three years, it was clear from guarantee card Ex.C-5 which is placed on record. The complainant requested OPs time and again for replacement of the mattresses in question but OPs linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. The copies of emails dated 14.06.2018, 16.07.2018, 18.07.2018 proves that the complainant requested OPs various times for replacement of the mattresses in question but OPs failed to comply the same. The complainant suffered from back problem. In this regard, he placed on record various document to prove that.
8. Now, the major controversy involved in the present case in hand, is that the deficiency or unfair trade practice attributed on the part of OPs or not? The mattresses in question were purchased by the complainant on 05.03.2015 this fact is clear from bill Ex.C-6 on the record. This fact is also clear that the complainant purchased the mattresses in question from OP no.1 for payment of Rs.11,000/-. The copy of guarantee card Ex.C-5 on the record. In this card, the warranty period is mentioned as 3 years and pro-rate is mentioned as 8 years and total period is mentioned as 11 years. Ex.C-5 is the vital document on the record. In this document the guarantee period and pro-rate period is mentioned specifically. This document of OPs and they cannot wriggle out from the same. This document Ex.C-5 guarantee card issued by OPs to complainant at the time of purchase of mattress. From perusal of this document Ex.C-5, which is guarantee card, the OP no.1 is liable to replace the pair of mattresses in question with new one. Some companies offer a ‘Pro-rate Warranty, this means that if an item fails before the end of the items warranty period, it is replaced or repaired as per usual, only for the amount based on a cost that depends on the age of the item at the time of failure.
9. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we party allowed the complaint of the complainant and OPs are directed to replace the pair of mattresses in question with new one within a period of 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. The case could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and spread of Covid-19.
11. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
20th of April 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
