Delhi

StateCommission

A/196/2016

SUBHASH VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S GROVER FURNITURE HOUSE & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 19.05.2016

Date of Decision : 01.06.2016

Appeal No. 196/16

 

(Arising out of the order dated 16.01.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.401/13 by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II.)

In the matter of:

Subhash Verma,

S/o Late Shri Ram Narain,

R/o J-240, Ground Floor,

Saket,

New Delhi-110017.                                                                                      …..........Appellant

 

VERSUS

1. Grover Furniture House,

P-27, Main Market Road,

Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110017.

 

2. M/s. KURLON Ltd.,

F-6, Udyog Nagar,

•  

Delhi-110087.                                                                                   ….....Respondents

                                                                

CORAM

 

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The present appeal is being taken up at the stage of admission. The appellant filed the claim before the District Forum which was registered as Complaint Case No.401/13. The same was rejected vide order dated 16.01.2016 which is under challenge in the present appeal.

 

2. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that complainant purchased a pair of Kurlon Ortho Mattresses manufactured by OP-2 from OP-1 for Rs.14,380/- on 19.06.2011.  After a short period, the mattresses sagged from centre.  He complained to OP-2 and OP-2 replaced the same with new pair. After 3-4 months complainant found some problem in new mattresses. He again complained to OP-2 on 22.06.2012.  The representative of OP-2 attended the complaint and reported that mattresses were O.K. The complainant felt that he was cheated and was least satisfied with the product.

 

3. OP-1 stated that complainant conveyed his problem on 31.10.2011 which was forwarded to OP-2 on 06.11.2011.  On 12.11.2011 an executive of OP-2 inspected the mattresses and complainant got replacement.

 

4. OP-2 filed written statement taking the same plea as that of OP-1. It further stated that on 22.06.2011 they again received the complaint from complainant. Technical staff named Onkar Singh was sent who found that mattresses were in good condition. Anyhow, OP-2 pleaded that in order to save its reputation it was ready to replace the mattresses once again.

 

5. The complainant did not feel satisfy with the offer of OP-2.  The District Forum found that complainant in his affidavit filed on 23.05.2014 and in written arguments dated 08.12.2014 nowhere mentioned that he wants to get mattresses replaced. He also did not mention what was the defect in the mattresses either in the complaint or in an affidavit or in written arguments. Hence, he failed to prove  deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

 

6. I have gone through the material on record and heard complainant in person. The complainant was interested in getting the refund. It does not appeal to reason that one can use mattresses for a year, have the mattress changed during the said one year and then seek refund of the entire price.

 

7. The conduct of the appellant in not accepting offer of OP-2 to provide one more replacement detracts the case of appellant.  The appeal appears to be malafidie and is dismissed.

 

8. One copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy be sent to District Forum-II for information.

 

9. FDR, if any, be released in favour of appellant as per rule.

 

10. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)