Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/895/2019

Er. Dinesh Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Jul 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	895 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	05.09.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	10.07.2020

 

 

 

 

 

Dinesh Kumar Sharma s/o Late Sh.Sham Lal, r/o H.No.242, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., SCO No.120-122, Sector 17-c, Chandigarh through Sh.Mandeep Kanwar, Asstt. Manager Sales

 

2]  M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Plot No.A-40, Phase-VIII-A, Ind.Area, Mohali 160059

 

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

                               

For Complainant      :    Complainant in person.

For OP(s)            :    Sh.Gaurav Deep Goyal, Advocate

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

          The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased Rhine Recliner Plus Sofa set (3+1+1) from OP No.1 on 12.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.72,437/-.  It is averred that the said Sofa got defective within few months, so complainant lodged a complaint with OPs on 13.5.2016 for replacement.  Accordingly, the OPs replaced the Sofa, but the said Sofa too got defective in 2018 and as such another complaint was lodged with OPs on 22.11.2018. However, the OPs refused to replace the Sofa on the pretext of out of warranty and alleged to have been damaged due to its usage.  It is stated that the Official of OPs when contacted told that the 2 years warranty of the recliner of the Sofa starts from the year 2015 i.e. original purchase whereas it should be from the date of replacement of defective recliner sofa set in 2016.  It is also stated that the scalp of leather of the Sofa in question started depleting within 2 years of its purchase.  It is further stated that the OPs instead asked the complainant to get the Sofa set repaired on chargeable basis and quoted price of Rs.41,060/- excluding GST & transport charges.  It is submitted that the complainant has suffered tremendous mental agony, physical harassment and loss due to said act & conduct of the OPs. 

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the sale of the product/Sofa in question stated that the booklet supplied with Rhine Recliner Sofa (3+1+1) clearly states about its warranty of 1 year (Ann.R-1).  It is stated that in response to the complaint lodged by the complainant through email dated 24.5.2016 regarding problems in the Sofa, the same was replaced by the OPs free of cost. Thereafter the complainant on 22.11.2018 again submitted a complaint with OPs that the replaced sofa had again got defective.  Accordingly, the OPs sent their Engineer to assess the Rhine Recliner set, who found that the damage had been done due to usage and further the Rhine Recliner set was out of warranty.  It is submitted that from the photographs (Ann.A-3) it can clearly be seen that the Rhine Recliner set has been mishandled and therefore it got damaged. It is also submitted that the complainant has been informed that the repair of the Rhine Recliner set could be done on chargeable basis, but the complainant kept on asking for replacement of Sofa.  It is stated that the Rhine Recliner set of the complainant is damaged due to use.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OPs and have perused the entire record including written arguments of OPs.   

5]       Admittedly, the complainant purchased Rhine Recliner Plus Sofa set (3+1+1) from OP No.1 on 12.6.2015.  Annexure A-2 placed on record is evident of the fact that the product bought in question got defective and against the complaint raised with OPs, it got replaced by another one. 

 

6]       To the utter dismay of the complainant, the said replaced Sofa Set in question again developed cracks and leather of the Set in question shredded off badly within a span of just 1 & ½ yeas approximately.  The complaints were duly raised with the OPs and the correspondences were exchanged between the parties. The documents placed on record reveals that it is a proven fact that the Rhine Recliner Sofa in question has developed bad shape due to cracks and shredding off the leather layer which could be due to the usage of substandard quality of the leather.  There is no evidence placed on record by the Opposite Parties to reveal that the complainant has mishandled the Sofa in question. No expert report has been made part of the record to establish the lasting period of i.e. durability of the leather used and also the exact reason for the deteriorated condition of the Rhine Recliner Sofa in question for which the complainant paid a handsome amount.

 

7]       In our concerted opinion, the branded products like of the OPs, are purchased with a faith in mind that the material used therein is of the best quality as has a brand name attached to it.  Also it is believed by the gullible consumer that such goods/products purchased shall give a trouble free usage and for getting that extra peace of mind, an excessive price quoted by the company is paid, despite being aware that in local regular market such products have a very lower value or are sold at lower price.  We accordingly feel that one must get the best bargain i.e. he/she must get the value for money.

 

8]       In the present case in hand, the OPs have failed to provide that extra peace of mind for which the complainant paid an excessive amount and in response remained under constant pressure to bear the brunt of the same and till date is facing hard to get the right benefit out of the product purchased from the Ops, which has an international repute too.

 

9]       Admittedly, the Recliner set in question is in bad shape due to the shredding off of the leather and has also lost its luster badly. It is evident that the OPs have claimed an amount of Rs.41,060/- for repairing the product in question for which they are insisting the complainant to pay, which is unjustified.  To set right the equations, it is obligatory on the part of the OPs to repair the complete Sofa set in question, free of cost.

 

10]      From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is proved. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to repair the entire Rhine Recliner Sofa set (3+1+1) free of cost.  The OPs are also directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony, harassment, along with litigation cost of Rs.7,000/-.

         Taking judicious notice of the pandemic conditions erupted due to Covid-19, which also resulted in labour problem, we in an alternate, give a free hand to the OPs to either repair the Recliner set in question with good quality material and pay the other costs or if consider appropriate, then refund the invoice price of the recliner set in question, without any of the costs imposed.

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to refund the entire cost of the Sofa set in question, apart from above relief.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.   

Announced

10^th July, 2020                                                                                                                                                              Sd/-  

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER