BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 666 of 2010

Date of Institution :  29.10.2010

Date of  Decision   :  11.05.2011

Sumer Singh Saini s/o Late Sh. Ram Singh, #1146, ZL, Adarsh Colony, Near Upper Mohalla, Kalka (Haryana).

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Kapur Steel Industries, SCO No. 3017, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:   Sh.P.D. GOEL                    PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL          MEMBER

            DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. J.S. Bedi, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Amaninder Preet, Counsel for OP.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

           Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant complaint are that the Complainant purchased one pair of Coir Mattresses (Make: Paras – Luxury Firm) from OP, vide Bill No. 3840 on 29.06.2010, for `7875/-. After some days of putting them to use, the Complainant noticed that the said mattresses started giving pungent smell, which was not bearable. He, immediately, brought the same to the notice of OP, but the latter refused to change the said mattresses, especially when the same were in guarantee period. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to elicit any fruitful results, he got served a legal notice dated 8.8.2010, as a measure of last resort, calling upon the OP either to refund the entire payment or to change the mattresses, but OP did not take any action whatsoever. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]         OP in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, denied that the mattresses started giving pungent smell, which was not bearable. The warranty which was given on the said mattresses, was given by the Company itself. It was pleaded that the answering OP, when asked to Complainant that he will send his Assistant to check the mattresses, the Complainant refused to do the same and also did not bring the mattresses in question to the Shop of OP for checking and rather, filed the present complaint with oblique motive. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

3]         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]         We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and OP No.2 and have also perused the record.

5]         The case of the Complainant was admitted on 08.11.2010 and on 22.12.2010, Sh. Parveen Bansal had appeared on behalf of OP as their Agent and the OP had contended that there are chances of settlement and as such, the case was fixed before the Lok Adalat. On 9.2.2011, Sh. Amaninder Preet, Advocate appeared on behalf of the OP and made a statement at bar that they are ready to replace the Mattresses with ne one or to refund the invoice amount of Rs.7875/- from the day one before the issuance of legal notice, but the Complainant neither allowed them to inspect the mattresses in question, nor he had brought those mattresses to the shop of OP.

6]         The learned Counsel for the OP has argued that it is a false and frivolous complaint filed by the Complainant just to harass the OP. Every effort was made to reconcile the matter in the Lok Adalat, but the Complainant did not budge his stand and he was only interested in getting the compensation. We, therefore, find sufficient merit in the contention of the OP.  The present complaint has been filed simply by the Complainant for the purpose of harassing the OP and he has tried to use this Forum as a money spinning machine, which needs to be dismissed.

7]         However, before parting with the order, we are also of the opinion that any false, complaint filed with an intention to harass the OP, certainly attracts provision of Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under:-

“26] Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious complaints. —

Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or as the case may be, the National Commission, is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order.”

8]         As the present complaint has been found to be false, frivolous, vexatious and filed just to harass the OP, hence the same is dismissed with cost. The Complainant is directed to pay `5,000/- to the OP as cost, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

9]         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.