This is a complaint made by one Sri Monojit Chatterjee against M/s Estillo lifestyle furniture; Outpace Furnitures Pvt. Ltd., praying for a direction upon the OP to take back the defective and sub-standard product and refund the cost of the same and for further order for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 5,000/-.

In a short compass, case of the Complainant, is that, he purchased a new 3-door wardrobe from the OP vide challan no. 1244 dated 25-12-2014.  At the time of purchase, the OP offered 5-years warranty for fitting and polish of the wooden wardrobe.  It is alleged that the joints of the wardrobe doors became loose within one month of its use.  So, necessary complaint was lodged with the OP and after vigorous follow-ups, the OP attended to the complaint.  It is further alleged that, after some time, whitish marks developed both outside and inside the said wardrobe.  So, the OP was duly informed to do the needful.  It is also alleged that fungal infection started growing with the advent of monsoon season and so, a complaint was lodged with the OP on 15-07-2015.  However, although the poor condition of the wardrobe was explained to the OP, it hardly showed any concern.  It is alleged that though the wardrobe was under warranty for 5 years, the OP demanded Rs. 500/- from the Complainant for fungal treatment.  Upon repeated requests, fungal treatment was done by the OP during the fag end of August, 2015.  However, within a week of termite treatment, said fungus resurfaced.  Extremely perturbed, the Complainant asked for return of the sub-standard product.  As ill luck would have it, the OP showed no inclination to oblige him.  Hence, this case.

OP contested the case by filing written version.  Besides denying all the material allegation of the complaint, it is stated by the OP that the Complainant was well aware of the quality of the product.  Although it is merely an importer, the OP is always committed to render proper service to its customers and no exception was done in the case of Complainant as such.  Pointing out that the wardrobe was purchased on 25-11-2014 and complaint of fungal infection was lodged only on 15-07-2015 it is claimed by the OP that such admitted fact clearly shows that for long 7 months the Complainant did not feel any discomfort with the same.  It is further stated that the product is under warranty for a period of 5 years, however, the scope of warranty is limited to fittings and polish only and fungal treatment does not come within the ambit of warranty.  It is stated that the real reason behind surfacing of fungus on the wall of the wardrobe is not due to any impurity of the material that was used to make the said wardrobe, but it developed due to seasonal damp on the walls of the Complainant’s flat where the instant wardrobe was placed.  During rainy season, when the damp of the room gets increased, it instigates fungal infection on the surface of such product.  According to the OP, the Complainant was fully aware of the scope of warranty and he decided to go for it after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the warranty.  Therefore, OP prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with reasons

Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief against which, OP filed questionnaire.  Subsequently, Complainant replied to the same under affidavit and thereafter, argument followed.

The moot point for consideration is whether or not the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for in his petition of complaint.

Complainant has filed photocopy of Order/delivery form and copies of some correspondences.  It appears, Complainant has not filed copy of the warranty card. However, undisputedly, the wardrobe comes up with a warranty of 5 years in respect of fitting and polish of the same.  In this regard, it is argued by the Complainant that ‘warranty on polish’ is implicit to take care of inherent latent defects like fungal growth.  He further contended that fungal growth cannot expose itself without jeopardizing the polish. 

The interpretation of agreements is a well-established phenomenon in any legal system. Whenever the parties' intentions are drafted through a written agreement, its literal meaning should prevail; only in cases where there is ambiguity in such meaning should extrinsic evidence be sought in an attempt to determine the parties' intention from the various potential literal meanings.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court through catena of judgments has held that it is incumbent upon any Court of Law to go by the literal meaning of the wordings of contract/agreement/warranty clause.  Terms and conditions of a warranty are binding on both the seller as well as purchaser.  As the warranty clause in respect of the wardrobe concerned indemnify a purchaser for any kind of polish related defects, the liability of the OP, to our mind, stands confined to render services in respect of polish related defect only - no more no less. Thus, our hands are tied to accede to the interpretation formulated by the Complainant.  We afraid, as the scope of warranty is not stretched to cover fungus related defects, no direction can be given to the OP to make good the defect free of cost. Accordingly, the Complainant is not entitled to other reliefs as well.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/35/2016  be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any costs.