BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 19^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 (herein under referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OPs:-

(a) Direct the OPs to pay the entire bill amount of Rs.48,247/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of payment till realization.

(b) Direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and physical suffering due to deficiency of service on the part of OPs.

(c) Direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation due to deficiency of service along with legal expenditure.

(d) Grant such other reliefs deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has purchased cot worth Rs.37,240/- and mattress worth Rs.11,007/- from the OPs under tax invoice dated 01.07.2019.  The cot was not good quality, which came to be broken in August, 2018 and June 2019.

3. Once again, the cot which was replaced also broken in June, 2019.  The warranty period was upto 30^th June 2019.  The OPs failed to comply the request of the complainants.  The cot suffers from manufacturing defects.  Therefore, by issuing E-mail and legal notice, the complainant called upon the OPs to refund Rs.48,247/- with interest at 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.70,000/-.

4. In response to the notice, the OPs appear and file version.  The OPs contends that the product was not suffering from any manufacturing defect.  There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of OPs.  The OPs admit purchase of cot and mattress worth Rs.48,247/-. At the request of the complainant, the serviceman of the OPs visited the house of complainant and indicated that the product was not suffering from manufacturing defect.  The complainant failed to use the product according to the instructions, terms and conditions mentioned in the user manual.  The complainant has not produced user manual.  The complainant failed to maintain the product and use the product in proper way.  Therefore, OPs request to dismiss the complaint.

5. The complainant files her affidavit evidence and relies on four documents.  OPs file affidavit evidence of it’s representative and relies on six documents.  Heard the arguments and perused the records.

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:-  In the negative.

      Point No.2:- In the negative

      Point No.3:-per final orders

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2:At the first instance, we would like to refer the admitted facts with reference to the documents.  As per the allegations made in the complaint and admitted by the OPs that the complainant has purchased a cot worth Rs.37,240/- and mattress worth Rs.11,007.50 from the OPs under invoice Ex.A.1 dated 01.07.2018.  But, complainant has wrongly mentioned date of tax invoice dated as 01.07.2019.  According to the complainant, the OPs have replaced the cot and replaced cot also broken in June, 2019.  Later on, the complainant made correspondence through E-mail and legal notice.  OPs have also issued a reply that the amount cannot be returned.
9. It is relevant to note that the complainant seeks refund of entire invoice price of Rs.48,247/- of two products.  But, the allegations of the complainant against cot worth Rs.37,240/-.  Under such circumstances, the complainant is not right in claiming entire invoice price of Rs.48,247/- including cost of the mattress worth Rs.11,007/- which does not suffer from any defects.
10. It is relevant to note that the complainant has not produced user manual to show the terms and conditions and how to use the cot.  Whereas, OPs has produced the same.
11. OPs denies the theory of manufacturing defect in the cot and contends that the complainant has not used the cot as per the user manual guidelines.  Ex.R.1 is the certificate under Section 65(B) of Evidence Act.  Ex.R.2 is the copy of the resolution authorizing Manjunath.M to represent the OPs in this case.  Ex.R.3 is the letter of authorization.  Ex.R.4 is the user manual care instruction and terms and conditions.  The complainant does not dispute this.  It is relevant to note that the complainant has not produced any photos of the cot to show that the 2^nd cot which was replaced also has been suffering from manufacturing defect.  In the absence of photos is hard to believe that the replaced cot also suffers from manufacturing defect.  The legal notice of the complainant has been suitably replaced by the OPs.
12. The initial burden lies of the complainant to prove that even replaced cot was also suffering from manufacturing defect.  The complainant expects this Commission to believe her case without production of photos of alleged damaged cot. The complainant has retained this material evidence to prove that the replaced cot was also broken.  We fail to understand why the complainant has not produced the photos of alleged replaced broken cot.  The complainant failed to make out a case either for deficiency of service or manufacturing defects.  Therefore, complainant is not entitled to any reliefs from the OPs.    

8. Point No.3:- Having regard to the discussion made above, the complaint requires to be dismissed. We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. No costs.
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both parties as per law.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 19^th day of April, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant are as follows:

Documents produced by the OPs are as follows: