Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/53

Gurdas Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jain Carpates - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh Sethi

23 Aug 2023

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                  53 of 2020

Date of Institution :     27.03.2020

Date of Decision :       23.08.2023

Gurdas Singh son of Karam Singh, resident of Kothe Dhilwan Wale, Kotli Abloo, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, at present resident of New Cantt Road, Street No. 5, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Jain Carpets, Mandi Bazaar, Faridkot through its Proprietor Avinash Jain.
2. Freedom the World Finest Matress Company Outlet, Jawahar Nagar, Campus, Street behind Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana through Proprietor.
3. Freedom the World Finest Matress Company, Village Salimpur, Hambra Road, Ludhiana through its Proprietor.

....Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President,

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:       Sh Ranjit Singh Sehti, Ld Counsel for complainant,     

                    Sh Nikhil Chawla, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                     OP-2 and OP-3 Exparte.

(ORDER) 

(Vishav Kant Garg, Member)

                                               Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to refund the amount of Rs.13,670/- that is cost of defective mattress sold by OPs to

cc no. 53 of 2020

him and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.2 lacs as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

   2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP-1 that mattresses of OP-2 and 3 are of very good quality having twenty years warranty and are easily replaceable within warranty period, complainant purchased one mattress of Rs.13,670/- from OP-1 against bill no.7610 dated 17.12.2015 and OP-1 wrote in his own writing warranty of twenty years for said mattress over the said bill. Grievance of the complainant is that just after three years, mattress sold by OP-1 got spoiled. Complainant complained about this to OP-1 several times, but OP-1 refused to attend him and paid no heed to redress his grievance. Complainant approached OP-1 several times and made abundant requests to him to replace the said mattress, but all in vain. And finally flatly refused to admit his genuine request. All this has caused harassment and mental agony to him which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to refund Rs13,670/- i.e cost of said mattress with interest and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                        Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 02.03.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                               On receipt of notice, OP-1 appeared in this Commission through counsel and filed written statement, wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and is based on

cc no. 53 of 2020

wrong information. It is not maintainable as complainant has not made complaint regarding any issue in mattresses to him nor he made complaint regarding this to OP-2 and 3. Complainant never approached answering OP, therefore, present complaint is premature. Further averred that warrantee is only for the purpose of depreciation by deducting the amount as per the use per year. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted before the Commission that complainant purchased said mattress from him for Rs.13,000/-alongwith a cover worth Rs.670/-. it is averred that complainant is misconceived about the period of warrantee of mattress as claimed by him as 20 years whereas  maximum warrantee given by complaint is 12 years. On the bill , the model name of mattress “Freedom 20 years’ is mentioned which the model of the mattress and not the period of warrantee. Complainant has levelled false and baseless allegations. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with cots.

5                 Despite service of notice to OP-2 and 3 through publication and even after several calls, no one appeared on their behalf either in person or through counsel on date fixed, therefore, vide order dated 02.11.2021, OP-2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.

6                  Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

 7                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Avinash Jain Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 and Ex OP-3 and then, closed the same.

 

cc no. 53 of 2020

8                                              We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party-1.

9                                              It is observed that case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP-1 that the mattress of OP-2 and 3 is of very good quality having twenty years warranty and is easily replaceable within warranty period, complainant purchased one mattress of Rs.13,000/- alongwith cover for Rs.670/- from OP-1 against proper bill which is Ex C-1. Grievance of the complainant is that just after three years of usage, mattress sold by OP-1 got spoiled and despite repeated requests, neither OP-1, OP-2 and 3 replaced the same nor they paid any heed to redress his grievance.

10                                              It is admitted fact that complainant purchased said mattress from OP-1 and the mattresses is manufactured by OP-2 and 3. From the record produced by complainant it is evident that on Ex C-2 i.e copy of bill no.7610 dated 17.12.2015, OP-1 himself written over it in his own writing that there is warranty of twenty years for said mattress, but now OP-1 has taken plea that ‘Freedom 20 years written over the bill Ex C-2, is not the warranty period, rather it is the model of said mattress, but bare perusal of Mattress Look Book which is Ex OP-3 produced on record by OP-1, reveals the fact that nowhere on any leaf of this booklet, model of the mattress is mentioned as ‘Freedom 20 years’. In fact, 20 years was written only to assure the complainant regarding warrantee period provided by the complainant. Product sold by OP-1 did not come up to the expectations of complainant as it got spoiled before the warranty period. No doubt

 

 

cc no. 53 of 2020

that complainant used the said product for three years, but it did not cover the least warranty period of 12 years as referred by OP-1 in written version.

11                                             There is no doubt that complainant paid heavy amount of Rs.13000/-for the purchase of said mattress, but due to its poor quality, product sold by OP-1 became worthless and complainant could not get the benefit of amount given to OPs for purchase of said product. Complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony at the hands of OPs because had OPs taken effective steps to redress the grievance of complainant, there would have been no complaint at all. Complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case, whereas OPs have nothing to contest the allegations of complainant.

12                                    In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by the complainant. It is made out that there is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OPs with directions to them to jointly and severally replace the mattress with new one of same make or model. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses incurred by complainant on present complaint. Complainant is directed to return the old mattress to OPs on receipt of new mattress from them. Compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by all OPs respectively within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order.

 

 

 

cc no. 53 of 2020

13                        The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases and incomplete of quorum. Copy of order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission

Dated : 23.08.2023

Member                                     President

(Vishav Kantt Garg)                (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)