DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 11th day of April 2023
Filed on: 20.06.2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C No. 246/2019
COMPLAINANT
P. Prabhakara Menon, S/o. (late) Sri C. Krishna Pisharody, Gokulam Amrit Retreat, House No. 7B , Kadavanthra, 682020.
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/s.Pepperfry , 402, 4, Corporate Annexure, Goregaon East
Mumbai (M> CORP} Mumbai- 400063.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased two pieces of 'Tango One seater Manual Recliner' sofas marketed by 'Pepperfry', a Mumbai based marketing company with their 'studios' spread over various cities in the country in October 2017. The opposite party have one such 'studio' at Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam, which delivered the sofas at the complainant residence. During the warranty period of one year, the leatherette covering started to peel off. The complainant took up the matter with the local supplier, as well as with Customer Care at Pepper fry. In response - on phone, because they do not commit anything in writing, as the complainant could surmise- the complainant was told that such defects are not covered by the warranty, and in any case, they are not responsible for any defect as mentioned in the invoice. The complainant made efforts to get the defects rectified by local upholsterers but without success. The invoice mentions the name of the manufacturer as "Casa Craft" without address or contact particulars. The complainant wrote a letter to Pepper fry, requesting for the contact details of the manufacturer. The letter was sent by Speed Post, but the address was scored off and the letter returned to the complainant, unopened. The complainant distressed about the cavalier attitude of this marketing company towards the customers. They owe it to the customers to listen to their complaints and resolve them, or at least suggest ways to get them resolved. In the subject case they not only failed to do so but insulted the complainant by returning the complainant letter unopened. Apart from loss of money the complainant also much inconvenienced, embarrassed and distressed in having to keep these unsightly pieces of furniture in the complainant living room, attracting comments and criticisms from visitors.
The complainants had approached the commission seeking an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.39,998/- the cost of sofas and take back the defective two sofas and to pay Rs.100,000/ as compensation towards mental distress, inconvenience, embarrassments and wasted physical efforts.
2) Notice
The notice sent to the complainant is seen as returned with an endorsement “unclaimed” as per the proof of the Postal Department. The service of the notice shall be deemed to be served. Hence, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed 5 documents along with the complaint.
1.True copy of the retail invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 17.10.2017.
2. True copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 16.03.2019.
3.True copy of the retuned cover from the opposite party.
4. Photo copy of the acknowledgement card from the opposite party.
5.Photo copy of the picture showing the defects.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced copy of the retail invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 17.10.2017 (Exhibit A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .
The above case is filed by the complainant to refund Rs.39,998/- the cost of sofas and take back the defective two sofas and to pay Rs.100 000-/- as compensation towards mental distress, inconvenience, embarrassments suffered by the complainant due the deficiency in service of the opposite party.
The complainant submitted in the complaint that the during the warranty period of one year, the leatherette covering started to peel off. The complainant took up the matter with the local supplier, as well as with Customer Care at Pepper fry. In response - on phone, because they do not commit anything in writing, as the complainant could surmise- the complainant was told that such defects are not covered by the warranty, and in any case, they are not responsible for any defect as mentioned in the invoice. The complainant made efforts to get the defects rectified by local upholsterers but without success. The complainant distressed about the cavalier attitude of this marketing company towards the customers. They owe it to the customers to listen to their complaints and resolve them, or at least suggest ways to get them resolved.
We have also noticed that a notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version.
The complainant has filed the Proof Affidavit and 5 documents before the commission, all in support of his case. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to file a version.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The Opposite Party has inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the Opposite Party in failing to provide the complainant’s desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We found the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainants.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The opposite party shall refund the complainant Rs. 39,998/- to the complainant towards the cost of the defective sofas.
ii) The opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- as the compensation for loss caused to the complainants due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices of the opposite party.
- The opposite party shall also pay the complainant Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (ii) above also shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Ambily transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 11th day of April, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
1.True copy of the retail invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 17.10.2017.
2. True copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 16.03.2019.
3.True copy of the retuned cover from the opposite party.
4. Photo copy of the acknowledgement card from the opposite party.
5.Photo copy of the picture showing the defects.
C.C No. 246/2019
Order dated 11.04.2023
