Complainant through Adv. Shri. Subhash Baviskar
Opponent No. 1 through Adv. A. S. Chavan
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(23/04/2013)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against the dealer and company of Sofa-cum-bed for deficiency in service. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows,
1] The complainant is the resident of Mahatma Sahakari Gruha Rachana Sanstha Ltd., Kothrud, Pune. He has purchased sofa-cum-bed of Tele Brands from the opponent no. 1, who is the authorized dealer of opponent no. 2 on 9/7/2010 under bill no. 83. The quality of the said product was very poor and there was leakage in the said product. Complainant made complaint to the opponent no.1. Initially, the said product was replaced by the opponent no.1 on 18/9/2010. Again within span of 2 months, the same problem was occurred in the said product. Hence the complainant has made complaint to opponent no.1 on 30/11/2010. Thereafter the opponents have refused to give any service to the consumer. It is the case of the complainant that the opponents have caused deficiency in service by selling defective product to the complainant. Hence he is entitled to get compensation as price of the product on the ground of mental and physical suffering and cost of the proceedings.
2] The opponent no. 2 remained absent though duly served with the notice. Hence the complaint proceeded ex-parte against the opponent no. 2.
The opponent no. 1 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version on 21/12/2011 and denied the complaint in toto. The opponent no. 1 agreed that the complainant had purchased sofa-cum-bed of Tele Brands after seeing advertisement on television channel and purchased the said product. Warranty of the said product was for 15 days from the date of purchase; still the opponent has replaced the said product even though the complainant has not made complaint within stipulated time. Sofa-cum-bed was replaced on 18/9/2010, thereafter within period of 15 days no complaint was made by the complainant. Hence the complainant has lost his right to get replaced the said product. The opponent had flatly denied that there was defect in the product and it has caused deficiency in service. The claim as regards compensation on the ground of mental and physical sufferings and cost of the proceeding are also flatly denied by the opponent and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3] After scrutinizing the documents, which are filed on record and hearing the arguments of Advocate for complainant, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether the complainant has proved that there was defect in the product purchased by him within warranty period, after replacement of the product? | In the negative |
2. | Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental and physical sufferings? | in the negative |
3. | What order? | Complaint is dismissed |
REASONS :-
4] The undisputed facts between the parties are that the complainant has purchased the product named as ‘Sofa-cum-Bed’ of Tele Brands from the opponent no. 1 on 9/7/2010 under bill no. 83. It is also not in dispute that the opponent no. 1 has replaced the said product on 18/9/2010 and this fact is substantiated by the original bill, which is produced on behalf of the complainant. It reveals from the complaint that, the complainant has made second complaint on 30/11/2010 i.e. after two and half months from the replacement of the product. According to the opponent no. 1, warranty of 15 days only and if any defect is disclosed in the product, thereafter the dealer is not responsible to replace the said product. It is significant to note that, the price of the product is Rs. 5800/-, there is no clause as regards warranty in the bill. The complaint is made by the complainant to authorized dealer after two and half months, in such circumstances, it can not be said that there was manufacturing defect in the product. Hence, I held that there is no deficiency in service, as no manufacturing defect was found in the product, when the product was purchased by the complainant. As there is no deficiency in service, the complainant is neither entitled for cost of the proceeding, nor compensation on the ground of mental and physical sufferings. In the result, I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order,
** ORDER **
1. The complaint is dismissed, there is
no order as to the costs.
2. Copy of the order be supplied to both
The parties free of cost.
