Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/38/2014

R.L.Ramani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sakaar Furniture - Opp.Party(s)

B.Raveendran

08 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 08.01.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 08.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.38/2014

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 08^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

R.L. Ramani,

S/o. R. Laxminarein,

No.13, Seshadri Road,

Alwarpet,

Chennai – 600 018.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                    

 

..Versus..

 

M/s. Sakaar Furniture,

Represented by its Manager,

No.128, Greams Road,

Thousand Lights,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant       :  M/s. B. Raveendran & others

Counsel for opposite party   :  M/s. Praveen Alexander & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

 

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- being the value of the defective revolving chair supplied by the opposite party together with interest at 18% p.a. from 26.11.2012 to till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and anguish caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service and negligent and indifferent attitude of the opposite parties with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he purchased a ‘Stress Less’ revolving chair from the opposite party on 24.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.42,500/- including all taxes.   The said revolving chair was delivered on 26.11.2012.  The opposite party represented that the said revolving chair is an imported Chinese chair with sophisticated wheels for easy mobility with an assurance that it would withstand for 10 years along with one year warranty.   Further the complainant submits that within one year of purchase, the seat of the revolving chair curved and cracked on the underside and broken into pieces was informed to the opposite party immediately on 21.09.2013 and requested for repair or replacement. The warranty extended upto 26.11.2013.   The opposite party informed over phone that the revolving chair cannot be repaired or replaced, it can be repaired on payment of cost since there was no warranty.    But the Order Form specifically concludes guarantee for glass and uphostery hence the guarantee / warrantee shall be extended to the seat of the revolving chair.  The complainant issued notice dated:23.09.2013 requesting to repair the revolving chair without payment.   But the opposite party has not sent any reply even after the receipt of the same.   Further the complainant submits that the conditions mentioned in the Order Form No.274 cannot be accepted since it is against the public policy and morality.   Further the complainant submits that the delay in settlement of the issue cannot be taken into consideration since the revolving chair was damaged on 21.09.2013 and has not been repaired by the opposite party till date.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that the complainant ordered for purchasing an imported revolving chair on 24.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.42,500/-.  The opposite party’s staff informed the complainant that the revolving chair is an imported furniture and do not carry any guarantee or warranty.    Further the opposite party states that the complainant had received the goods in good condition on 26.11.2012.  The complainant has no loco standi to file this complaint after using the imported revolving chair for a period of over 10 months.   Further the opposite party states that due to mishandling of the imported revolving chair, the seat portion was damaged.   The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that admittedly the complainant ordered for purchasing an imported revolving chair on 24.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.42,500/- as per Ex.A1.  The opposite parties’ staff informed the complainant that the revolving chair is an imported furniture and do not carry any guarantee or warranty.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1, there is nothing about the imported nature of the revolving chair.   The opposite party also has not produced any record to show that the revolving chair was imported from abroad i.e. from which country.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had received the goods in good condition on 26.11.2012.   The complainant has no loco standi to file this complaint after using the imported revolving chair for a period of over 10 months.  But on a careful perusal of EX.A1, condition No.5, there is no guarantee for glass and uphoistery.   In this case, the damage of seat in the revolving chair is caused which is not of glass.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that due to mishandling of the imported revolving chair, the seat portion was damaged.   The complainant is trying to blame the opposite party; the said contention is not acceptable because, the real damage of seat was caused to the revolving chair within the period of one year.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that without prejudice to the rights of the opposite party, he is ready and willing to repair the said revolving chair on payment of actual cost and it is very clear that there is no guarantee for glass and uphoistery.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that without prejudice to the rights of the opposite party, he is ready and willing to repair the said revolving chair on payment of actual cost and it is very clear that there is no guarantee for glass and uphoistery.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.    Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite party. 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.45,000/- being the value of  the revolving chair with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 26.11.2012 to till the date of payment as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service and negligent and indifferent attitude of the opposite parties with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased a ‘Stress Less’ revolving chair from the opposite party on 24.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.42,500/- including all taxes as per Ex.A1.   The said revolving chair was delivered on 26.11.2012.  The opposite party represented that the said revolving chair is an imported Chinese chair with sophisticated wheels for easy mobility with an assurance that it would withstand for 10 years along with one year warranty.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1, Order Form, the Terms and Condition which reads as follows:

1. 50% Advance to confirm the order
2. Full payment Before delivery
3. Order once placed cannot be cancelled or altered
4. Goods once delivered cannot be taken back or exchanged
5. No guarantee for glass and uphoistery
6. No Refund under any circumstances
7. Vat extra.

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that within one year of purchase, the seat of the revolving chair curved and cracked on the underside and broken into pieces was informed to the opposite party immediately on 21.09.2013 and requested for repair or replacement.  The warranty extended upto 26.11.2013.  But the opposite party informed over phone that the revolving chair cannot be repaired or replaced, it can be repaired on payment of cost since there was no warranty.    But the Order Form specifically concludes guarantee for glass and uphoistery hence the guarantee / warrantee shall be extended to the seat of the revolving chair.  The complainant issued notice dated:23.09.2013 requesting to repair the revolving chair without payment.   But the opposite party has not sent any reply even after the receipt of the same which amounts to deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the conditions mentioned in Ex.A1 cannot be accepted since it is against the public policy and morality.   Under the guise of Terms & Condition No.5  “No guarantee for glass and uphoistery” that  the opposite party denying the repair / replacement of the seat of the revolving chair; cannot be permitted.   Equally, the condition that no refund under circumstances is a clear violation of settled law because knowing fully well the low quality, substandard materials having manufacturing defect.   Therefore, the complainant is entitled for replacement or refund of the cost price.  

7.     The Counsel for the complainant cited in:

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.446/2013

Between

M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.

-Versus-

Rohit Jain & another

That

“As regards the plea taken by the opposite parties that the complainant is claiming warranty even after five years whereas warranty has long since expired and the complainant therefore is not entitled to any relief in respect of the car or the engine which is five year old.  The Delhi State Commission in appealcase No.A711/2004  on 19.11.2007 titled as “Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Tata Motors & ors.”           Had very well expressed their views that concept of warranty is limited to the extent of putting the liability of the consumer to pay for the charges for the repairs conducted after warranty period but it does not absolve the manufacturer and the service provider from the liability of having sold defective vehicle and it was to calculate high standard of quality of goods and services, that the Legislature brought the Consumer Protection Act on the statute book by defining the word “defect” in section 2(1)of the Act shows that, “ any kind of fault or imperfection or short coming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under contract express or implied or is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods”.   And Hon’ble State Commission had opined thus, whenever manufacturer of the vehicle offers to sell a brand new vehicle to the consumer, there is an implied contract to the claim of the manufacturer that vehicle being sold by it does not suffer from any will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained”.

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the delay in settlement of the issue cannot be taken into consideration since the revolving chair was damaged on 21.09.2013 and has not been repaired by the opposite party till date which amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards the value of the revolving chair with a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost.

9.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that admittedly the complainant ordered for purchasing an imported revolving chair on 24.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.42,500/- as per Ex.A1.  The opposite parties’ staff informed the complainant that the revolving chair is an imported furniture and do not carry any guarantee or warranty.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1, there is nothing about the imported nature of the revolving chair.   The opposite party also has not produced any record to show that the revolving chair was imported from abroad i.e. from which country.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had received the goods in good condition on 26.11.2012.   The complainant has no loco standi to file this complaint after using the imported revolving chair for a period of over 10 months.  But on a careful perusal of EX.A1, condition No.5, there is no guarantee for glass and uphoistery.   In this case, the damage of seat in the revolving chair is caused which is not of glass.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that due to mishandling of the imported revolving chair, the seat portion was damaged.   The complainant is trying to blame the opposite party; the said contention is not acceptable because, the real damage of seat was caused to the revolving chair within the period of one year.    

10.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that without prejudice to the rights of the opposite party, he is ready and willing to repair the said revolving chair on payment of actual cost and it is very clear that there is no guarantee for glass and uphoistery.  But in this case, the seat of the revolving chair is damaged.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall repair the revolving chair at free of cost within one month, failing which, the opposite party shall refund the cost price of the revolving chair of Rs.42,500/- and pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party is directed to repair the complaint mentioned ‘Stress Less’ revolving chair at free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which to refund the cost price of the said revolving chair of Rs.42,500/- (Rupees Forty two thousand and five hundred only) and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 08^th day of October 2018. 

                   

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	24.11.2012	Copy of Order Form No.274 issued by the opposite party
Ex.A2	23.09.2013	Copy of legal notice issued by the Counsel for complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A3	01.10.2013	Copy of acknowledgement card for the above notice

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT