DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 31^st day of August, 2011

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

: Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member

: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K. Member

Date of filing: 21-02-2011

CC.No.30/11

Mr. Muhammadali,

S/O Chekkutty Mohlla,

Valakkode House,

Kalladikode.P.O, -Complainant

Palakkad.

(Adv.C.B. ANAND)

Vs

1.Prop.Navodaya agencies,

Home Appliances & Furnitures,

Deepa Junction,

Kalladikkode.P.O,

Palakkad.

(Adv. AZAD.N.N)

2.Manager,

M/s.Agreenco Fibre Foam Pvt.Ltd., -Opposite parties

No.8/201, Gurukripa,

Jainimedu,

Palakkad.

(Adv. P. SREEPRAKASH)

3.Manager,

M/s.Agreenco Fibre Foam Pvt.Ltd.,

Baliapatam, Kannur.

(Adv. P. SREEPRAKASH)

O R D E R

BY SMT.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Complaint is with respect to fibre foam mattress purchased from 1^st opposite party and manufactured by 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. The price of bed was Rs.4,400/-(Rupees Four Thousand and Four Hundred Only) and it also bears a replacement of guarantee for 1 year for any defect. Within 1 week itself sagging was noticed and mattress became useless. 1^st opposite party was informed. 1^st opposite party along with 2^nd opposite party came and inspected the mattress and found that it has a manufacturing defect and assured to replace the same by intimating to 3^rd opposite party. The mattress was also taken by them. Later though repeated demands were made opposite parties did not replaced the same. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays directing opposite parties to replace the old mattress with new one or pay Rs.4,400/-(Rupees Four Thousand and Four Hundred Only) being its price along with interest and Rs.25,000(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation.

1st opposite party admits purchase of the mattress from them. Also admits that 1^st opposite party along with the manager of 2^nd opposite party has inspected the mattress at the residence of the complainant on 03/08/2010. Mattress was taken to 1^st opposite party's shop. 1^st opposite party could not replace the mattress since the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties has not replaced the same though it was intimated. 1^st opposite party being a dealer is not liable for any manufacturing defect of the goods.

2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties contented that it was only after the receipt of the complaint from the Forum, they came to know of the present complaint of the complainant. According to opposite parties they have not conducted any inspection on 03/08/2010. After receipt of notice from the Forum they have inspected the property and found that there is sagging. 2nd opposite party requested the complainant to deliver the mattress either to 1^st opposite party or to the representative of 2^nd opposite party. Complainant refused the same. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were always ready to rectify the defect if any as per the terms and conditions of guarantee. According to opposite parties since opposite parties has taken initiative to rectify the defect, there is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties.

The evidence led by the parties consists of proof affidavit of complainant and 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Ext.A1 to A2 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 to B7 marked on the side of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. 1^st opposite party has not filed any chief affidavit.

Now the issues that arise for considerations are,

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the goods supplied by opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to?

Issues 1 & 2

Complainant alleges manufacturing defect to the mattress supplied to the complainant by 1^st opposite party where 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the manufacturers.

1^st opposite party contented that the complaint was duly informed to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and they have not taken steps to replace the mattress. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties on the other hand contented that only after receipt of notice in the present complaint, they came to know of the complaint and immediately they have deputed a person for inspection. On inspection sagging was noticed and complainant was adviced to handover the mattress to 1^st opposite party or representative of 2^nd opposite party, which was not done by the complainant.

Going through the rival submission of both parties and evidence on record, we find that defect is admitted by all opposite parties. The purchase of the mattress from 1^st opposite party's shop is proved by Ext. A1. Guarantee for 1 year as stated by the complainant is not disputed by 2^nd opposite party. 1^st opposite party has admitted in the version that he along with the representative of 2^nd opposite party has inspected the mattress at the complainant's residence. The say of 3^rd opposite party that they have no knowledge of the complaint seems to be unbelievable. It is evident from Ext. B1 and Ext. B3 that 1^st opposite party has contacted the complainant and examined the mattress on 17-03-2011. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties submitted that the mattress was not handed over to 1^st opposite party. But in the version, it is admitted that mattress was with 1^st opposite party. The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that they have intimated the complaint within time. There is no evidence to show that 1^st opposite party has intimated the complaint to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

Defect as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of Consumer Protection Act read as follows:

"Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming 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 any contact, express) implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods".

Though manufacturing defect as such is not proved, defect is admitted by the opposite parties. 1^st opposite party also admitted that there is guarantee of 1 year for the product. The evidence on record shows that complainant has been supplied with a defective mattress.

In the result, complaint allowed. All opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to the complainant. Opposite parties are directed to pay complainant Rs.4,400/-(Rupees Four thousand and Four Hundred Only) being the price of the mattress along with Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings.

Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the ordered amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the day of 31^st August, 2011.

Sd/-

Smt.Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Smt.Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P N E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1- Purchase bill issued by the Navodaya Agencies dated, 15/05/2010.

Ext.A2- A letter from Agreenco Fibre foam Pvt.Ltd. dated, 22/03/2011.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Ext.B1- Letter (informing the inspection of mattress) from

Agreenco Fibre Foam Pvt.Ltd. Dated, 10/03/2011.

Ext.B2- Acknowledgement Card from Agreenco Fibre foam Pvt.Ltd. Dated 15/03/2011.

Ext.B3- Format for Complaint Redressal, issued by Agreenco Fibre Foam Pvt. Ltd. dated

17/03/2011.

Ext.B4- Letter from Agreenco Fibre Foam Pvt. Ltd. adviced to return the mattress for

rectification dated, 22/03/2011.

Ext.B5- Letter from Agreenco fibre Foam Pvt. Ltd. Informing that the complainant's failure of

returning the mattress dated, 05/05/2011.

Ext.B6- Acknowledgement card from agreenco Fibre Foam Pvt. Ltd. Dated, 10/05/2011.

Ext.B7- Copy of Certificates of assessment two numbers issued in favour to the third defendant.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

Nil.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties

Nil.

Cost allowed

Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) allowed as cost of proceedings.