BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Monday the 03rd day of January , 2011
C.C.No 96/10
Between:
P.Rahul, S/o P.Yellappa, Correspondent,
Shanthinekathan Educational Society, DUPADU, Kallur Mandal,
Kurnool District-518 004.
…..…Complainant
-Vs-
M/s. Gopi Reddy Foams and Furnitures,
Rep.by its Proprietor,415, Eswar Nagar,Kurnool-518 002.
….…Opposite Party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. A.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 96/10
This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying
- to replace the defective article with a new piece or to return the cost of the article.
- to pay the costs of the complaint,
- to pass any other order or orders that are deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2) The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- On 01-04-2009 the complainant purchased foam beds and two pillows from the OP for Rs.6,150/-. Within 15 days after purchased the complainant found holes in the beds. Immediately the complainant informed to the OP. The OP personally came and observed it. The OP promised to replace the same with a new piece. Even after several months the OP did not replace. At last on 03-07-2009 the complainant got issued legal notice to the OP demanding to replace the defective articles. Again the OP represented that defective beds would be replaced by the company. The OP did not fulfill its promise. The acknowledgement of the notice got issued by the complainant was lost in the floods. Taking advantage of it the OP is contending that it did not receive the notice. Hence the complaint.
3. OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The Op was not informed of any defect by the complainant at any time. Had the complainant informed about the defects in the beds the OP would have replaced them immediately. There was no loss to the complainant. the complaint is filed beyond one year after purchase. The warrant period of one year expired. There was not complaint within one year of the warranty period. The manufacturer of the beds is a necessary party. The OP is only a dealer. There was no deficiency of service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 and A2 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the OP sworn affidavit of the OP is filed.
- Both sides filed written arguments.
- The points that arise for consideration are
- Whether there is defect in the beds purchased by the complainant.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. Point No. 1 & 2:- It is the case of the complainant that he purchased foam beds and pillows from the OP on 01-04-2009. Ex.A1 is the cash bill issued by the OP. As seen from Ex.A1 it is very clear that the complainant purchased two beds and two pillows from the OP for RS.6,100/-. There is not dispute about the purchase of the beds and pillows by the complainant from OP on 01-04-2009. It is the case of the complainant that shortly after the purchase of the beds he found holes and that the beds became thin. To prove the same the complainant filed Ex.A2 photos. As seen from Ex.A2 photos it is very clear that the upper cloth of the beds is torn. It is the case of the OP that the warranty period is one year and that the complainant filed the complaint one year after the purchase of the beds and that the OP is not liable to pay any compensation. In Ex.A1 cash bill there is no mention that the warranty period is one year only. According to the complainant prior to the filling of the complaint he also got issued legal notice to the OP and that the acknowledgement of the said notice was lost in the floods. Merely because the complainant could not file the acknowledgement it can not be said that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. As already stated there is material on record to show that there is defect in the beds sold by the OP to the complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the OP may be directed to replace the beds or to pay the cost of the articles. The complainant filed the present complaint long after he noticed the defects in the beds. At this stage we think it is not just and proper to direct the OP to replace the defective beds with new beds or to return the cost of the articles. As there is defect in the beds sold by the OP we think it is just and proper to direct the OP to pay compensation of RS.500/- to the complainant.
8. Point No. 3:- In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.500/- to the complainant with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint i.e., 04-05-2010 till the date of payment along with costs of Rs.500/-.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, Corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 03rd day of January, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Bill dt. 1-4-2009 for Rs.6,100
Ex.A2. 3 Photos
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
