District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 535/2022.
Date of Institution:30.09.2022.
Date of Order:20.6.2023.
Jasmeet Singh S/o Shri Jatinder Singh R/o House No. 712, Sector-14, Faridabad. Aadhaar card No. 9665 6077 1304, Mobile No. 9971203797..
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. HSIL Limited (Retail Division) EVOK Bahadurgarh (Mother Warehouse) Opposite Bus Stand, Near Bal Bharti School, Bahadurgarh – 124507 (Haryana) email:evokcare@evok.in.
2. The Manager, EVOK Showrookm, Crown Interiorz Mall, Delhi Mathura Road, Sector-35, Faridabad.
3. Mr. Naresh, Service Head, EVOK Showroom, Crown Intriorz Mall, Delhi Mathura Road, Sector-35, Faridabad.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Shri Jatinder Singh, counsel for the Complainant.
Shri Abhishek, on behalf of opposite party No.1.
Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 exparte vide order dated 30.11.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased 8 seater Dining table HSN code 94036000 with 7 dining chairs HSN code 94036000 and a coffee table with Rack HSN code 94034000 for an amount of Rs.96,001/- in all vide tax invoice No. C12202204682 dated 26.08.2019 from the opposite party NO.1 through the opposite party NO.2 having EVOK showroom in Crown Interiorz Mall, Delhi, Mathura Road, sEctor-35, Faridabad, It was worth mentioning here that the sample of the 8 seater dining table with 8 dining chairs and the coffee table with rack was duly shown to the complainant assuring that the 8 seater dining table with 8 dining chairs and a coffee table should be delivered to the complainant as per the samples as were being kept in Evok Showroom mentioned above .
Believing the opposite party No.2, the complainant purchased the above mentioned dining table, chairs and the coffee table vide invoice Annexure-1. The purchased items mentioned above were to be dispatched form Bahadurgarh, Haryana, where the opposite parties were having their mother warehouse, through transport at the residence of the complainant i.e House No. 712, Sector-14, Faridabad. Upon payment of the entire invoice amount, the invoice material was delivered from HSIL Limited, Warehouse Haryana vide Outward No.3948, vide outward dated 27.08.2019 as was mentioned in invoice No. 259028420 dated 26.08.2019. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the opposite parties mentioned the warranty period for itemsNos.1 & 2 as upto 26.08.2019, whereas the warranty period for item NO.3 was mentioned upto 24.08.2020, whereas in fact the warranty period should had been mentioned as 26.08.2021. The opposite parties playing smart had mentioned the warranty period for the item Nos.1 & 2 just for the day of invoice, whereas the warranty period for the item No.3 was given for 1 year only.
The complainant pointed out the opposite party NO.2 in person at EVOK showroom that 4 dining chairs were short in height as compared to the other 4 dining chairs. The opposite party No.2 assured that the chairs should be replaced ads and when any other consignment was transported from their works to Faridabad. However, opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to keep in touch with opposite party No.3 as the opposite party No.3 would deal with the problems of the complainant being the service head, who sits in the showroom situated in the Crown Interiorz Mall, Sector-35, Faridabad. The complainant and his mother were in constant touch of opposite parties with regard to the replace of 4 dining chairs time to time, but all the times, the opposite parties used to pacify the complainant with their with their sweet talks and assurances.
The invoice material was purchased on 26.08.2019. Unfortunately, the entire nation got affected from Covid-19 Pandemic during which the common movement was ordered to be restricted on 23.03.2020 by the orders of the Government of India, which remained effective initially from time to time till May, 2022 as per the local condition of Covid-19 Pandemic and during the Covid period all the malls were closed as per the guidelines of Government and as such could not visit he opposite parties physically. It was being brought on record that the complainant made complaints to the opposite parties regarding the mismatch of 4 dining chairs as 4 dining chairs were short in height as compared to the other 4 dinning chairs which were long in height. It was submitted that upon seeing all the 8 dinning chairs at a glance, the height issue of the chairs become prominent. However, the complaints made by the complainant through telephonic messages as well as through Whatsapp chats from time to time, the complaints so made used to be attended. Upon making the complaint on 23.06.2021, the opposite party NO.3 sent whatsapp messae showing his inability to send the technician due to unfortunate death in his in-laws family but shared the telephone contact number of technician Mr. Ramesh having phone NO. 9899981987. Accordingly Mr. Ramesh mentioned above attended the complaint by coming to the residence of the complainant on 09.07.2021. Mr. Ramesh duly took photographs of the chairs to show to his employer with regard to the disparity of height of 4 dinning chairs out of the 8 dinning chairs. Thereafter the complainant started visiting EVOK Showroom in person to remind the opposite party No.2 for replacing 4 dinning chairs requesting that either 4 chairs of short height be provided or 4 dining chairs of long height be provided for which the opposite party No.2 assured time and again but failed to get the 4 dining chairs replaced. The complainant made his grouses to the opposite party No.2 but the opposite parties failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) replace all the 8 dining chairs of equal height matching with the colour and grains of the dining table.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint was related to product i.e. 8 seater dining table with HSN code 94036000 with 8 dining chairs which had been supplied/marketing undertaking of CPDM undertaking (Consumer Products Distribution and Marketing undertaking) of HSIL Ltd. The Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench had approved the above said scheme vide its order dated 26.06.2019 and consequently approved the demerger and transfer of the CPDM undertaking to Somany Home Innovation Limited and DPDM undertaking to Brilloca Ltd., alongwith all of their respective associated assets, rights, privileges and liabilities of such businesses, of HSIL Ltd. w.e.f. Ist April 2018. In pursuant to said ordr dated 26.6.2019, HSIL Limited had now been stand released from all/any rights, liabilities, duties and obligations of HSIL Limited w.r.t.CPDM undertaking. The present complaint was not maintainablein the eyes of the law and was liable to be dismissed forthwith as no cause of action arises against answering opposite party No.1. The content sof complaint was vehemently denied unless specifically admitted herein. Opposite party No.1 had not violated any provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The picture including the impugned product was purchased by the complainant on 26.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.96,001/- which was a heavily discounted price from an MRP of Rs.259/-. The tax invoice for the purchase of products in question mentions that “Products sold at discount of 40% or above on MRP during all schemes would not be covered under warranty.” Since the discount offered to the complainant was much more than 40%, the products purchased by the complaint were not covered under any warranty which ws duly intimated to the complainant at the time of purchase. The allegations of the complainant were based only on averments made in the complainant and without any corroborative evidence of the alleged 2 years of warranty for the product in question, which could not be allowed. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Notices issued to opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2022.
4 The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– HSIL Limited with the prayer to: a) replace all the 8 dining chairs of equal height matching with the colour and grains of the dining table. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Jasmeet Singh, Ex.C-1 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-2 – photos, Ex.C-3 (colly) –whatsapp message,
Despite availing several opportunities, evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1 has not been filed. Date requested. Opposed. Hence, the evidence of opposite party No.1 has been closed by court order vide order dated 12.06.2023.
7. It is evident Tax Invoice vide Ex.C-1, the complainant purchased 8 Seater Dinning Table HSN Code 94036000 with 8 Dinning Chairs HSN Code 94036000 and a coffee table with Rack HSN Code 94034000 for an amount of Rs.96,001/- in all vide Tax invoice No. C12202204682 dated 26.08.2019 from opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2, having EVOK Showroom in Crown Interiorz Mall, Delhi, Mathura Road, Sector-35, Faridabad. Upon delivery of the dining table, dining chairs and the coffee table, the complainant noted the opposite party No.2 in person at EVOK showroom that 4 dining chairs are short in height as compared to the other 4 dining chairs vide Ex.C-2(colly) . The complainant made complaints to the opposite parties regarding the mismatch of 4 dining chairs as 4 dining chairs were short in height as compared to the other 4 dining chairs which were long in height. Lodging of several complaints to opposite parties through whatsapp messages as well as screenshots of chats vide Ex.C-3 (colly) ipso facto go to prove that the product in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite parties. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.
8. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, jointly & severally, are directed to replace all the 8 dining chairs of equal height matching with the colour and grains of the dining table , subject to return the old article, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alognwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 20.06.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
