Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/26/2014

Surampalli Murali Krishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suhail Central Foam House - Opp.Party(s)

G.R.K. Paramahamsa

18 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:23-01-2014 

                                                                                                Date of Order:18-06-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President   

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                                  Thursday, the 18^th day of June, 2015.

                                      CONSUMER CASE No.26/2014

Between:-

Surampalle Murali Krishna, S/o late

Sri Rama Krishna, Hindu, aged 61 years,

Retired Bank Officer, R/o Flat No.2 & 3,

Sri Surya Residency-II, D. No. 49-47-6/A,

N.G.G.O’s Colony, Santhipuram, Akkayapalem,

Visakhapatnam-530017.

….. Complainant

And:-

Suhail Central Foam House, Rep. by its Manager,

having show room at 30-15-49, Opp: PEN School,

Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam-530002.

                                                                                           …  Opposite Party

                           

          This case coming on 09.06.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.R.K. Paramahamsa, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri D. N. Murthy, Advocate for the Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass an order: a) Directing the Opposite Party to replace the mattress of the Complainant with a good, standard mattress, b) Directing the Opposite Party to pay the Complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to him, c) Directing the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses and costs and d) Any other order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

2.       The Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the Complaint.

           

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the Complainant wanted to have a sound sleep on a good foam mattress  and he wanted to change his old mattress and buy a new good mattress, he went to the show room of the Opposite Party and asked for a good and comfortable mattress.   The sales officer of the Opposite Party suggested a 78 x 72 x 5 Sleep Well Zenith Luxury Mattress, which does not sag and provides ultimate support etc.   The Complainant trusted him and purchased the said mattress for Rs.13,900/- vide Cash Bill No. 25 dated 30.03.2011.  The Complainant was given a mattress bearing Serial No.9782793 with a guarantee card, which contains Unique advantages, Usage and Care, Guarantee terms inter alia Replacement Guarantee of two years and pro-rata guarantee of five years making a total of seven years.   He used the said mattress and felt comfortable and felt happy for purchasing good mattress, but his happiness was lost in few months.   The mattress started sagging in a few months and he was having back pain etc. inspite of the fact that he thoroughly followed the “use & care” as mentioned in the guarantee card.   The Complainant went to the respondent and complained about the sagging and the Opposite Party replaced for the first time on 4.8.2012 with Guarantee Card No. 12976074.   Within a short period of about three months same problem arose and on the complaint of the Complainant the Opposite Party sent company’s representative on 22.11.2012, who inspected the mattress and suggested for replacement of the mattress with a new one.   Hence, the mattress was replaced for the second time on 4.1.2013 i.e. after about one and half month from the date of suggestion/recommendation of the representative of the Opposite Party.   During that period he suffered a lot, the dates of suggestions, replacements were endorsed on the original cash bill.   The guarantee card given along with new mattress also has same terms and conditions inter alia replacement guarantee of two years and pro- rata guarantee for five years making a total period of seven years.   Within a short period of seven months i.e., in the month of August, 2013 the same problem arose, by that time he retired from the Banking servicing.  From the date of purchase of the 1^st mattress he has been using the mattress with proper care as mentioned in the guarantee card and he gave a complaint to the Opposite Party but nobody attended for a few months, the representative of the Opposite Party inspected the mattress and suggested for replacement of the mattress.  But the Opposite Party demanded 20% of the price of the new mattress as the guarantee period of two years from the date of purchase i.e., 30.03.2011 was over.  The cost of the same mattress at the time was around Rs.26,000/- and whereas the price of the mattress when he purchased was Rs.13,900/-.   Whenever, the mattress was purchased/replaced a new mattress was given with guarantee card, which mentioned very clearly that the replacement guarantee is two years.   The mattress was replaced with a new one with new guarantee card of two years, the second time, it was replaced on 4.1.2013.   The guarantee period starts from 4.1.2013 and ends on 3.1.2015.    During the guarantee period only and he gave a complaint, but it was rejected.  Hence, this complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim.   Exs.A1 to A3 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       On the other hand, the Opposite Party resisted the claim of the  Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that the mattress was given with a guarantee of replacement of the mattress within two years and pro-rata guarantee for five years; the contention of the Complainant that the guarantee for replacement was for seven years is false.   The Opposite Party stated that on the complaint of the Complainant, the Opposite Party replaced the mattress twice and both times the Complainant expressed his satisfaction.   The Opposite Party stated that again in the month of August, 2013, the Complainant gave a complaint that the said mattress is again sagging.  This time, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the guarantee period of two years elapsed in the month of March, 2013 and the guarantee is extended on pro-rata basis and as such in order to replace the new mattress, the Complainant has to pay the remaining sale price after deducting the pro-rata value of the old mattress, the Complainant did not agree for the said proposal and the Complainant wanted the guarantee extended in the first two years.   The Complainant is not entitled for the said guarantee as the period envisaged in the guarantee card  elapsed by March, 2013.   The Opposite Party further stated that even now he is ready to replace the mattress, if the Complainant pays the remaining sale price after deducting pro-rate value of the old mattress.  The Opposite Party stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint is vexatious one.

 

6.       The Opposite Party filed written arguments to buttress its contention.  However, no exhibits are marked for the Opposite Party.

 

7.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Party. 

         

8.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that as per the Ex.A2 guarantee card the mattress is sold with a guarantee for replacement of the mattress within 2 years and the pro-rata guarantee for 5 years.    Moreover, the Ex.A3 is acknowledgement only with a direction to replace on 22.11.2012.  This Ex.A3 does not carry either the dealers stamp or the details of the mattress in question as in Ex.A2 guarantee card.   Therefore, the claim of the Complainant that Ex.A3 extends the guarantee of the mattress is not true.   The mattress was already replaced twice during the guarantee period of 2 years.  After the guarantee period of 2 years, the replacement will be only on the basis of pro-rata guarantee.   As such, the Opposite Party rightly demanded 20% of the price of the new mattress as the guarantee period of 2 years from the date of purchase was already over by the month of August, 2013.   The Complainant has approached this Forum with an invalid claim.  Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

           

 9.      In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

 

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 18^th day of June, 2015.

 

 Sd/-                                 Sd/-                                         Sd/-

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

 

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	30.03.2011	Cash Bill No. 25 for Rs.13,900/- issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A02	30.03.2011	Guarantee Card No.9782793	Original
Ex.A03	22.11.2012	Guarantee Card No.12976074	Original

For the Opposite Party:-                 

-Nil-

Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                            Sd/-

President                            Lady Member                             Male Member