Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/63/2014

Dintakurthy Sathyanarayana Guptha, S/o. D.Ankaiah, Aged 70 years, pensioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.S. Sleepwell Gallery, By its Authorized Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

23 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

                                                                                                  Filing Date: 19-11-2014                                                                                                               Order Date:  23-04-2015

 

       BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,   

                                                   CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                                 SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER

       THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND             

                                                               AND FIFTEEN.

C.C.No.63/2014

Between

DINTAKURTHY SATHYNARAYANA GUPTA

S/o. D. Ankaiah, Hindu, aged 70 years,

Pensioner, residing at 201, Sneha Apartment,

Santhi Nagar, Khadi colony, Tirupati.

                                                                                                           …. Complainant

And

i) S.S. Sleep well Gallery, by its Authorized Signatory

   13-6-600/44/K4, Peddakapu Layout, Tirupati-517501.

 

ii) Sheela Foam Pvt., Ltd., by its authorized signatory

Regd. Office C-55, Preet Vihar, Vikas marg, Delhi-110092. 

                                                                                             …. Opposite parties

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 01.04.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.Y.B.S.Bapujee, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

This complaint is filed under Sections -12 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986, by the complainant, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for selling defective mattresses to the complainant.

         2. The brief facts of the case are: The opposite party No.1 is the dealer and opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the Zenith Coir Mattresses. The complainant submits that he purchased Zenith Coir Mattresses on 21.11.2012 from the opposite party No.1 shop by paying sale consideration of Rs.14,000/- with two years replacement warranty and total guaranty period of 7 years. Accordingly he used the mattresses, but in the month of October 2013 he found that the mattresses is sinking un evenly and formed into irregular downward shape in two places. The same was intimated by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 and one P.Murali opposite party representative attended the complaint and set righted the problem and advised him to use the same for further period. Again in the month of October 2014 the same problem was repeated, he reported the same to the opposite party No.1 again the same technical person Murali attended the repair and advised the complainant to get it changed by producing a copy of guarantee card along with copy of the receipt to the shop of opposite party No.1 for taking necessary action. There after the complainant in turn produced the copy of bill along with the guarantee card to the opposite party No.1 shop on 03.11.14. But the opposite party No.1 after receipt of the same failed to take any initiation to resolve the problem of the complainant. Finally, the complainant caused a legal notice on 11.11.2014 to the opposite party No.1 and 2 calling upon to replace the old mattresses with new one within three days from the date of receipt of the notices. But the opposite parties fail to do the same. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties to replace the new mattresses in the place of old mattresses or to refund the cost of the mattresses of Rs.14,000/- and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

           3. The opposite parties 1 & 2 came into appearance and  filed the written version of opposite party No.1 and same was adopted by opposite party No.2  by admitting the sale of  mattresses  to the complainant, but they disputed the date of sale and contended that the said mattresses was purchased by the complainant during the year 2010 and not in 21.11.2012  and the mattresses was exchanged of old one during 21.11.2012 and further contended that the complaint is made in the month of October 2013 and there after again he made a complaint in the month of November 2014. In the mean while the complainant approached the opposite party only one time that is in the month of October 2014. At first instance the opposite party No.1 representative Murali attended for the service and reported that the said bed is very comfort and there is no technical defects as alleged by the complainant and said Murali also suggested the complainant to use the mattresses on hard side instead of smoother side. Further contended that the said Murali after preparing a report on the verification of mattresses and offered to sign in the same, but the complainant did not acknowledge the same and further contended that the representative Murali was never worked with the opposite party in the month of October 2013 as he was joined in the month of November 2013. Hence the complaint of defect was attended by said Murali in the month of October 2013 is nothing but a false and concocted story.

          4. The opposite party further contended that the complainant purchased a dual core mattress which is useful on both sides hard in one side and another side is smooth. The company always suggests the old people have to use hard side of the mattresses for better feeling and the complainant to having satisfied its features, purchased the same and used nearly for two years and further contended that the complainant is in the habit of changing the mattresses when the warranty period goes to an end without any defects and also contended that originally the complainant purchased a mattress in the year 2010 and in the year 2012 when the warranty period of the old bed goes to an end, with all un tenable allegations, the complainant has got exchanged the said old bed  with new one and at that time the complaint again obtained receipt of the opposite party No.1 as it covers two years warranty. So it clearly shows that the complainant made a complaint in order to get wrongful gain with dishonest intention for getting a new mattress from opposite party without paying single rupee.  Hence the complainant suppressed all the material particulars and facts before this Forum. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          5. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and on behalf of him Exs. A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the Opposite parties one P.Murali representing the opposite party No.2 filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 to B4.     Written arguments were filed on behalf of the both parties and oral arguments were heard.

         On the basis of pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by both parties the points for consideration are:-

           (i)      Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite   

                       Parties towards the complainant?

          (ii)       Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs as prayed for?

          (iii)       To what result?

          6. Point No :- (i). There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the mattresses by the complainant from the opposite party No.1shop who is the dealer and opposite party No.2 who is the manufacturer of zenith mattresses because the same was  admitted and evidenced by Ex.A1 the receipt of the bill of the mattresses for Rs.14,000/- dated 21.11.2012. The main contention of the opposite party  is , the complainant purchased the mattresses in the year of 2010 and the complainant has got exchanged the said old bed with new one on 21.11.2012 by the time the complainant obtained the receipt i.e.Ex.A1 dated 21.11.2012 from the opposite party No.1, and got warranty card i.e. Ex.A2 which covers two years warranty. The complainant stated that the technician of opposite party No.1 P.Murali attended for service in the month of October 2013 and checked the mattresses and suggested that the complainant has to use the coir of the mattress on hot side instead of smoother side. Again during the month of October 2014 when the same problem was repeated the technician P.Murali attended for the service second time and advised the complainant to get it exchanged by producing the warranty card along with the copy of the receipt. But the opposite party fails to comply the same even after receipt of the warranty card and copy of the receipt on 03-11-2014. But the opposite party contended that prior to October 2014 as alleged by the complainant that the technician P.Murali attended for service on October 2013 is not true, because by the date of October 2013, the said Murali was no more an employee of the opposite party No.1 because he joined in the service only in the month of November 2013 so it is impossible for him to attend for service on October 2013, when he joined in service on November 2013. In order to prove his contention the opposite party No.1 marked the Ex.B1 appointment letter dated 22.11.2013 of probation i.e. P.Murali who attended for the service to the complainants house,now we have to see that whether the P.Murali attended for the services in the year October 2013 or not? Whether the said mattresses is suffered with the above said defects as stated by the complainant. But in this particular case it is clearly shows that the complainant purchased the mattresses from the opposite party No.1 shop and also the representative of the opposite party No.1 inspected the said mattresses on 24.10.2014. In order to evidence the same Ex.B3 inspection report was filed by the opposite party. The next contention of the opposite party is they never deputed their technician Murali to attend for the service in the month of october2013, in order to prove their contention the opposite party filed Ex.B2 i.e. 1) K.Rupesh Jaishwal attended for service in the month of October 2013 but not by P. Murali, But in the said inspection report there is no date is mentioned. Hence it cannot be considered. As per the contention of the opposite party that the complainant purchased the said mattresses in the year 2010 and exchanged the said mattresses by the end of the warranty period of two years on 2012 is not at all corroborative with the evidence placed by the opposite parties, because in the appointment letter of the said Murali i.e. Ex.B1 dated 22.11.2013 refers  in the 2^nd Para  “Your date of appointment is effective from the date of joining which shall be as soon as possible but not later than 1^st November 2013”. If the date of the letter itself is 22.11.2013, how can they direct to join their employee by the date of 01.11.2013?   Which is not at all practicable and believable as it seems that Ex.B1is created for the purpose of the case in order to save their skin by the opposite parties, hence it cannot be considered.

          The next contention of the opposite party is, the complainant purchased the mattresses on 2010 and it was replaced with new one in the year 2012, if it was really replaced in the place of old one but in the receipt dated 22.11.2012 i.e. Ex.A1.clearly shows that along with the mattresses the opposite party gave one compliment ‘Blanket’ with free of cost. If really he has taken for exchange purpose they never offered  the blanket as a compliment purpose. Hence as per the evidence placed by the complainant clearly shows that under Ex.A1 the complainant purchased the mattresses and Ex.A2 the said mattresses also got the warranty period. But in order to evade in the conditions of the warranty the opposite party created a beautiful story to defraud the customers. The opposite party has not responded for any other representations of the complainant and the very act of utter indifference to the grievance of the consumer and failure to provide adequate service certainly amounts to deficiency of service and opposite party has clearly shown that they will not provide any type of service what so ever promised. Hence that itself clearly shows that there is a clear deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties. Hence we are of the opinion that there is a clear deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Hence this point is answered against the opposite parties.

          7.Point:- (ii). The complainant prayed for the replacement of the mattresses or to refund of amount being the cost of the mattress and as the opposite parties has not shown any interest even after filing of the complaint, in spite of repeated attempts made by the complainant and as the opposite party failed to respond properly in providing service, the opposite party has clearly shown that it will not keep-up the terms of providing service and hence asking of refund of the cost of mattresses is well justified.  This forum is of the opinion that awarding a compensation of Rs.4000/- would be sufficient. The complainant is also entitled for a cost of Rs.2000. Accordingly this point is answered.

          8. Point:- (iii).  In the result this complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.14,000/- (Fourteen thousand only) towards the cost of the mattresses and to pay Rs.4,000/- (Four thousand only) towards compensation and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand only) towards costs. If the opposite parties fails to comply the order within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the above said 14,000/- (Fourteen thousand only) and Rs.4,000/- (Four thousand only) will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization.

         Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation in Open Forum, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open forum this the 23^rd day of April, 2015.

       Sd/-                                                                                                                  Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

C.C.No.63/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF BOTH SIDES

 

 

PW-1: Dintakurthy Sathyanarayana Guptha (Chief/Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW1: R.Murali (Chief Affidavit filed)

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1	Bill for Rs.14,000/- issued by Opposite Party No.1 for Zeneth product of mattress. Dt: 21.11.2012.(Original)
2.	Guarantee card issued by Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 21.11.2012.(Original)
3.	Office copy of legal notice to opposite parties 1 and 2 by Regd. Post.  Dt: 11.11.2014.
4.	A photo copy of Internet information regarding delivery of regd. notice to the opposite parties.
5.	Reply to Legal Notice from Opposite Party.No.1.Dt: 17.11.2014.
6.	Reply to Advocates from Opposite Party.No.1 intimating the complaint has been filed already. Dt: 19.11.2014.

 

\

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1	Joining report of the representative Murali behalf of the behalf of the opposite party No.1. Dt: 22.11.2013 (Photo copy).
2.	Inspection report in the year 2012 filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. Inspection Report Sl.No.1477. (Original)
3.	Inspection report in the year 2014 filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. (Duplicate copy). Inspection Report Sl.No.16395. Dt: 24.10.2014.
4.	Reply notice issued by the opposite party No.1 with his counsel. Dt: 17.11.2014.

 

 

                                                                                                                      Sd/-

President

 

// TRUE COPY //

         // BY ORDER //       

 

 

                                                   Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to: - 1. The complainant.

                    2. The opposite parties.