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

DATED 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

ORDER

SRI.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The  complainant  has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties  for reliefs

1. To direct the OP to return sum of Rs.48,502.74p being the cost of Ortho Blooms Mattress, comfort Luxe Matrress.
2. To direct the OP to replace the cost of Ortho Blooms Mattress, comfort Luxe Mattress  free of cost as compensation,
3. To direct the OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as damages/compensation towards mental agony and health issues and hardship suffered by the complainant
4. To direct the to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- being the cost of the notice dt.07.01.2021 and such other reliefs.

2.  The case of the complainant is that:

The OP-1 is doing business  of manufacture/procurement  sale of spring mattress, Ortho mattress, comforts and other bedding requirements and allied activities.       OP-2 is the branch office. This complainant is the customer of the OP.

It is further case of the complainant that he has approached OP-2 on 31.05.2020 for purchase of Mourya Wooden King bed without storage for a sum of Rs.85,004.88ps, Ortho Blooms Mattress for sum of Rs.16,501.12Ps and Comfort Luxe Mattress for a sum of Rs.32,001.62Ps and total for an amount of Rs.1,33,508/-. The said products were purchased by the complainant on 04.06.2020.

It is specific grievance of the complainant that while purchasing of product the OP has given warranty for manufacturing defect as per  terms and condition No.8 in the invoice. The OP had assured the complainant that all the products supplied were of high standard and also of international quality.

It is further grievance of the complainant that in the month of October 2020 Ortho Blooms Mattress  and Comfort Mattrress were torn off and the springs had come out causing severe back pain to the complainant. The complainant had to visit his doctor for treatment where the doctor advised to change the mattress. The defect in the mattress was due to manufacturing defect.

In spite of several complaints from October 2020 onwards the OP had failed and neglected to rectify the defect and to change and replace the mattress. The complainant was constrained to file the complaint on 12.10.2020 which was followed by several phone calls, personal visits etc. However except dragging of the matter the OP have not done anything. The complainant also issued legal notice on 07.01.2021 to return the amount of Rs.48,502.24ps being the cost of the mattress and replace the same free of cost as compensation and also called upon the OP to pay damages at Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant is also entitled to claim special damages for having suffered untold hardship and inconvenience resulting in manufacturing defect on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3. After filing of the complainant, notice issued to  OPs. OPs appeared through authorized representative and filed version.

It is the case of the OP that they are the leading and well reputed institution involved in importing and trading/selling of all kinds of  furniture through out India. They have various clients including corporate, government and semi-government institutions as customers and they have maintained high value in the business. They have employed more than 1000 people in their establishment.

It is the case of the OP  that the complaint is not maintainable due to delay and there is no manufacturing defect in the product. There is no cause of action for the complainant to approach the commission as they have not supplied defect items to the complainant.

The OP has admitted about the purchase of mattresses and also Mourya Kind bed for a total amount of Rs.1,33,508/- vide invoice dt.04.06.2020 and further admitted about the warranty given by them for 01 year.

It is specific contention taken by the OP that there is no manufacturing defect in the mattresses and they have not committed any deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled for any damages. The complainant has filed this complaint with a dishonest intention. The complainant failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the mattresses. Hence, this OP is not liable to pay or replace or refund the invoice amount. Therefore, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The complainant in order to prove his complaint filed his affidavit evidence and relied on Ex.P1 to P7. On the other hand the Legal head of the company has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on Ex.R1.  

5. Both the parties have  filed their written arguments.

6. The following points do arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

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

       Point No.1:-Affirmative

      Point no.2:- Affirmative in part.

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2:. These two points are interrelated and hence they have  taken up for common discussion.

9. The complainant in order to prove his contention has filed his affidavit evidence by reiterating all the allegations made in the complaint  and relied on exhibits P1 to P7. On the other hand Legal head of the OP filed his affidavit evidence and relied on Ex.R1.

10. It is undisputed fact that the OP engaged in the business of manufacturing and trade of mattresses and other furniture. The complainant approached OP-2 and purchased  Mourya Wooden King bed without storage for a sum of Rs.85,004.88p, Ortho Blooms Mattress for sum of Rs.16,501.12P and Comfort Luxe Mattress for a sum of Rs.32,001.62Ps and total for an amount of Rs.1,33,508/-. The said products were purchased by the complainant on 04.06.2020.

11. When the complainant came to know that out of the said products Ortho Blooms Mattress and Comfort Luxe Mattress were torn off and spring came out and which caused severe back pain to the complainant. He was made to visit the doctor and the doctor advised him to change the mattress. After that the complainant has approached the OP for replacement and refund of amount of Rs.48,502.74P being the cost of the 02 mattresses. 

12. On the other hand the contention taken by the OP is that they are reputed institution and they have not supplied any defective goods and the complainant has filed this false complaint just to extract money from them.

13. The complainant in support of his contention has relied on Ex.P1 & P2 copies of the 02 invoices, Ex.P3 is the photographs of the torned mattresses, Ex.P4 is the legal notice, Ex.P5 and P6 are the acknowledgements. The Ex.P3-03 photographs produced by the complainant clearly discloses that the mattresses were torned and the springs have come out. 

14.  The only contention taken by the OP that this is not a manufacturing defect and they have not supplied the defective goods and they  are not liable to replace or refund the amount.

15. The Ex.P3 Photographs clearly discloses that the mattresses supplied by the OP are torn off and springs have come out. Under these circumstances the customer cannot use the mattresses and it is unsafe for use. When the mattresses supplied by the OP is a defective one it is the duty of the OP to replace or refund the amount.  Instead of replacement the OP had taken the contention it is not a manufacturing defect. The OP would have taken this mattress to their institution to examine the same to know about the defect or would have cured the defect and if it is impossible to cure the defect he would have replace the mattress by the new one. Even though the complainant has lodged the complaint and contacted the OP over phone and inperson the OP failed to resolve the issue. Under these circumstances, the complainant was forced to approach this commission for filing this complaint.

16. The complainant cannot damage the mattresses on his own when he has purchased the same on payment of huge amount. It is also clear that the complainant in order to get relief from his back pain and other problems has chosen to purchase this mattresses by approaching OP institution by paying more than Rs.48,000/-.

17. The conduct of the OP clearly discloses that they are not ready to resolve the issue by taking advantage of the name and fame of their institution. When there is serious defect in the goods and it was reported by the consumer it is the duty of the OP to rectify the same by replacing or refunding the amount or by curing the defect. But the OP has not done anything without simply denying the defect. Under these circumstances the complainant clearly establishes the deficiency of service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part  of the OP. when the product is having defect and the defect arose within the warranty period the complainant is entitled for replacement or refund. The defect found in the mattresses is a serious defect and it cannot be repaired and it is unsafe for human use. Hence, we are of the opinion that the OP has to be directed the replace the mattresses or to refund the money with damages and compensation to the complainant. Hence, we answer point no.1 in affirmative  and point no.2 affirmative in part.  

18. Point no.3:-.  In view of the above discussions, the complaint is liable to be allowed in part and  OP is directed to replace the mattresses  or to  refund of Rs.48,502.74p being the cost of the Mattresses  along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization. The complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the financial loss and also mental agony suffered by him and with litigation expenses of Rs10,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP is directed replace the mattresses  or to  refund of Rs.48,502.74p being the cost of the Mattresses  along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization
3. The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards  financial loss and also mental agony suffered by the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. The OP is further directed to pay entire amount within 60 days from the date of this order, if the OP failed to refund the amount, the amount of  Rs.48,502.74p will carry interest at 12% p.a. after expiry of 60 days  till realization of the amount.
5. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties, and return the spare pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 30^th  day of December, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :  

*SKA