In brief, the present complaint has been filed by the titled complainant against the titled opposite parties aggrieved at their first having sold him the defective pair of mattresses and subsequent the point-blank refusal to change or to refund the amount on the pretext that these were never purchased from their show-room.
2. The complainant accompanied by his advocate friend Sh. Kamal Attri had purchased a pair of mattresses on 06.03.2020 from the OP1 Vendor @ Rs.8,000/- for self-use at his home. The OP Vendor did not issue him any cash-receipt/bill/cash-memo/warranty card etc but verbally assured him of the 9-year defect-free life of the then sold-out mattresses. However, these mattresses were found out to be defective (solid sponge-lumps) within six months of normal use.
3. The OP vendors were duly intimated of the manifested defect in the mattresses and subsequently approached by the complainant along with a friend Sh.Gabbar Singh with their request to wither change the said mattresses or to refund the invoice amount but the OP2 vendor refused point-blank in an alleged rude fashion. The complainant served legal-notice upon the OP vendor but he was not moved and stayed stuck to his adamant and rude refusal and thus prompted the present complaint seeking directives to the OP Vendor to either replace the mattresses or refund the amount of Rs.8,000/- besides paying him a sum amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice. The complainant has also produced the hereunder listed documents in evidence in support of successful prosecution of his complaint.
- Ex.C1 – Affidavit of the complainant;
- Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 & Ex.C4– Legal Notice dated 18.01.2021 & Postal Receipts;
- Ex.C5 – Affidavit of Advocate Kamal Kishore;
- Ex.C6 – Affidavit of Sh. Gabbar Singh.
4. Upon summoning through notice, the opposite party vendors appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement pleading all their objections in general and also on merits. The OP Vendors have preliminary addressed the complaint as not maintainable as the complainant has not come to the honorable commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts as he did not have any cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, the OP vendors have denied all the contents/allegations as made out in the present complaint as even the very sale of the said mattresses to the complainant from the show-room has been denied addressing the complaint as false, frivolous and vexatious and thus dismissal of the same has been sought in the interest of justice.
5. The OP vendors have, in order to support their prosecution of defense have filed Ex.OPW1/A Affidavit of Surinder Singh Sodhi the owner/proprietor of the OP1 vendor along with Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP24 Copies of Bills drawn upon the various other customers/consumers and Ex.OP25 Copy of the Reply to the complainant's legal notice and Ex.OP26 the postal receipt.
6. We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scale and scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to determine the respective ‘claims’ as pleaded forth by the opposing litigants in the light of the arguments as advanced by their respective learned counsels representing the respective sides. We observe the instant transaction as an active case of miss-selling at the end of all the titled opposite parties; the OP vendors have failed to prove that the mattresses were not sold by them as in all the bills/cash-memos produced by them have no mention of some 'Brand/Name of the Manufacturer' upon the bills of the sold mattresses and also upon the other consumable goods sold by them. Even the sellers own vendor-tag or some other identification mark are not present upon the sold goods so as to identify these at a later stage; and that certainly amounts to employ/play of an unfair trade-practice as recognized vide the modern consumer laws. The Vendors cannot escape the 'product-liability' as enacted/legislated afresh under Chapter VI Sections 82-86 of the CPA, 2019 by taking refuge - such-like unfair trade practices as: non-issuance of receipts/bills/cash-memos sans product identification tags/symbol on the sold products. The OP vendors have failed to explain as to why the present complaint stood filed against them by the one respectable resident along with affidavits of another two respectable residents of the city. Further, it is well known that sub-standard mattresses do form sponge-lumps in summer.
7. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite party vendors to refund the full price/amount of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% PA from the date of sale besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- in lump sum as cost and compensation within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid.
8. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (B.S.Matharu)
AUG. 26, 2022. Member.
YP.
