Delhi

North East

CC/327/2022

IQBAL HUSSAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRIME COMFORT PRDUCT LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 327/22

 

 

In the matter of:

		Sh. Iqbal Hussain S/o Sh. Basheer Ahmed R/o B 7/6, St. No. 1/5, B Block Kabir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110094		Complainant
		Versus
		Prime Comfort Products (P) Ltd. 2B/2, Ecotech III, Udyog Kendra, Greater Noida 201308, UP India & Lalita Mattresses and Furnishing Studio Babarpur, Near Shiv Mandir, Delhi 110032		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		02.08.2022 21.05.2024 21.08.2024

14.02.

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in services against Opposite Party i.e. Prime Comfort Products (P) Ltd.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased two mattresses on 06.12.19 for total amount of          Rs. 4,000/- with warranty card for five years. It is stated that the mattresses were good for the initial two years but after that deep spots stared appearing and other damages. Complainant contacted dealer regarding that and was assured that repairer from the company will visit and inspect but no one came to inspect the mattresses. The complainant allegedly called the customer care of the manufacturing company but in vain. The Complainant has prayed for    Rs. 4,000/- i.e. the cost of the product and Rs. 20,000/- compensation for mental harassment.
2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is objected to by the Opposite Party, the manufacturer that the complainant has not provided any bill of the mattresses with the guarantee card hence, product quality and specifications like density and thickness is not clear. It is submitted that their guarantee is applicable if density is more than 75mm. It is contended by the Opposite Party that they have no dealing with the complainant and the complaint should be dismissed.
3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant as well as counsel for Opposite Party. We have also perused the file.
5. It is the case of the Complainant that Complainant purchased two mattresses on 06.12.19 for Rs. 4,000/- with warranty card for five years. It is alleged that after two years of use, deep spots started appearing and other damages in the mattresses. The Complainant allegedly called the customer care of the manufacturing company and contacted the dealer but in vain.
6. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party is that the complainant has not provided any bill of the mattresses with the guarantee card hence, product quality and specifications like density and thickness are not clear. It is submitted that their guarantee is applicable if density is more than 75mm. It is contended by the Opposite Party that they have no dealing with the Complainant.
7. Perusal of material on record shows that the Complainant has not filed any purchase invoice to show that subject mattresses were purchased by him from Opposite Party. The Complainant has only filed a warranty card bearing particulars of Opposite Party company which neither mentioned his name nor the stamp of the dealer and the date of purchase. The Complainant has also filed one copy/print showing density of mattresses as 40 mm. The said print copy merely bears the name of the Opposite Party company and density which does not show whether same is the image of subject mattresses.
8. The contention of the Complainant is that the defect in the product was intimated to the Opposite Party and the complaints were made, however, the said contention has not been supported by any documentary proof. The Complainant has not filed any other proof whatsoever in support of his claim that he purchased the subject mattresses with five years warranty from Opposite Party and there were issues with the product in question and despite his complaints asking Opposite Party to repair or removal of defect, Opposite Party failed resolve the issue making Opposite Party liable to be deficient in services.
9. In this context, we would like to place reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SGS India Ltd v. Dolphin International Ltd. (Oct 6, 2021) wherein it is upheld that “ the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.” The Division Bench in above cited case relied on its judgment reported in Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines &Anr. (2000 1 SCC66) wherein it held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.
10. In view of above, we find that the contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint have not been substantiated/corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence and the onus being on the Complainant to prove his case, the Complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
11. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices against the Opposite part and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. Order announced on 21.08.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)            Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President