By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complaint in short is as follows:
The complainant is the power of attorney holder of Mr. Ajesh Madathil S/o velayudhan Nair, Sree Sylam , Thecharpoyil, Amarambalam-PO, Nilambur taluk, who is near relative of the complainant. The complainant purchased one cot and bed from the first opposite party on 29/08/2020 for Rs. 65,000/-. The purchase was done by the complainant along with power of attorney holder. The Euro tech bed worth Rs. 19,500/- became defective within 10 days of purchase. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant approached directly Mr. T.K. Swadakathulla, the true owner of the first opposite party shop, but he refusedto replace the bed and informed that, he will communicate defect of the bed to the concerned supplier-manufacturer. But thereafter no communication was received from the opposite party and so filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties. The complainant seeking refund of the cost of Rs. 19,500/- along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- i.e., altogether Rs. 69,500/- from the opposite parties.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed version. The opposite parties denied the entire averments and allegation of complainant.
3. The first opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased one wooden cot and bed from the opposite party shop for Rs. 65,000/- on 29/08/2020. But the averment in the complaint, the power of attorney was present at the time of purchase along with the original complainant is not correct. The opposite party is denied that the bed worth Rs. 19,500/- became defective within 10 days. The opposite party submitted that the brother in law of the complainant contacted the opposite party and demanded replacement of the bed is not correct. It is also denied that the brother in-law of the complainant approached the opposite party directly and demanded for the replacement of bed, that the opposite party will inform the manufacturer etc. The opposite party denied that the complainant caused mental agony and inconvenience and also financial issues due to non replacement of the bed. There is no deficiency from the side of opposite party and there is no unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party.
4. The opposite party submitted that there are so many manufacturers supplying cots and beds to the shop of opposite party and the articles purchased by the complainant was supplied by M/s Rabiya Group of Mattress, Chullikkode Padaparamba. Immediately on information from the complainant the opposite party had communicated the issues to the supplier and they had agreed to rectify the defect of the bed and was also prepared to replace the bed. The complainant had demanded replacement of the bed and accordingly opposite party approached the complainant with a new bed of the same model and quality, but the complainant was not ready to receive the same or to take back the alleged defective bed. The complainant restrained the vehicle within the premises of complainant, which brought new bed for the substitution. Thereafter the complainant started to campaign against the opposite parties through the online medias. The complainant issued defamatory information through the various online channels. The opposite party shop is working with high reputation and without any allegations. Due to the malicious propaganda, various consumers of the opposite party contacted the opposite party and withdrawn from purchasing article from the opposite party shop. Due to the act of complainant, the opposite party suffered huge financial loss and even the shop was up to the verge of closing.
5. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had thoroughly verified the quality of the bed before purchasing and only after convincing the same he purchased the bed. Thereafter one month, the complainant contacted the opposite party over telephone and informed there is stitching problem to the bed and then it was informed it can be rectified or it can be replaced.
6. The complainant filed this complaint suppressing the true facts and without impleading the supplier of the product and so the complaint is not maintainable. Hence, the opposite party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party .
7. The complainant on the basis of averment in the version filed by the first opposite party impleaded the second opposite party and thereafter issued notice to the second opposite party.
8. The second opposite Party also entered appearance on receipt of notice from the Commission and second opposite party filed version in tune with the first opposite party.
9. The second opposite party admitted the supply of the bed, but it is submitted that the bed issued was medi bed and it was cautioned to be handled with care. But the complainant handled the bed without any responsibility and which resulted the defects to the bed. The said fact was communicated by the first opposite party to the second opposite party and on receipt of information the second opposite party immediately packed a new bed of the same specification in the company vehicle to the residence of the complainant, but the complainant refused to receive the bed and also refused to hand over the alleged defective bed. The complainant detained the vehicle with in the premises of the complainant locking the gate. Thereafter the complainant started campaign through social media against the opposite party. The opposite party alleges the complainant trying to extract money, unauthorisedly from the opposite party and that purpose the present complaint filed before the Commission.
10. The opposite party submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party. The opposite party was prepared to replace the alleged defective bed and to deliver the same at the residence of the complainant. The second opposite party further submitted that he is prepared to replace the bed at any time at the request of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. The attempt of the complainant is to spoil the good will of the opposite party and for that purpose the complainant manipulated all things and started propaganda through the social media. Due to the act of the complainant, the opposite party submitted that they caused much loss and hardship. The complainant wilfully hides the fact the opposite party had approached at the residence of the complainant with defect free bed. Hence, the opposite party submitted that there is no any sort of loss sustained to the complainant and so the complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the complaint.
11. The complainant and first opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The document on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is copy of tax invoice dated 29/08/2020 for Rs. 65,000/-.Ext. A2 is power of attorney executed by Mr. Ajesh Madathil in favour of the Mr. Mohandas. C dated 22/10/2020. No documents for the opposite parties.
12. Heard the complaint and opposite parties, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration-
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.
- Relief and cost.
13.Point No.1 & 2
It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased cot and bed for Rs. 65,000/- from the first opposite party shop on 29/08/2020. The complainant alleges the bed was defective one and it became defective within 10 days of purchase. The complainant further submitted that he demanded to replace the bed, but the opposite party refused to do so and the present complaint filed seeking refund of the cost of bed Rs.19,500/- along with litigation cost and compensation.
14. The opposite parties though admitted the purchase of the product denied the allegations that the product was defective and there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. The opposite parties further submitted that they approached the complainant at his residence with a fresh piece of bed with the same specification but the complainant refused to accept the same and so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. From the affidavit and version of the opposite parties it appears the complainant refused to accept the fresh piece of bed delivered to him at his residence. It can be seen that the complainant purchased the defective article which is worth Rs. 19,500/- as per Ext. A1 and it became defective within 10 days of purchase. Hence the non-acceptance of new piece of bed cannot be treated as an indifferent act from the side of complainant. The defective product naturally results inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. The complainant is entitled a defect free product at the time of purchase itself. There is no evidence that the product became defective due to the lack of care in handling by the complaint. Since the complainant is not interested to use the defective product of the second opposite party, he is entitled to refund the cost of the bed.
15. Considering the entire aspects we direct the opposite party No.1 and 2 to refund the cost of bed Rs. 19,500/- to the complainant. It can be seen that the complainant purchased the bed from the opposite party and was taken to the house using special conveyance. Hence he might have incurred some expenses towards the same. The complainant also submitted that do to defective product he sustained mental agony, inconvenience and hardship. So the complainant is entitled a reasonable amount of compensation which we consider Rs. 15000/-will be a reasonable amount. The complainant also entitled cost of Rs. 3000/-towards the proceedings. The second opposite party did not file affidavit and so he is set exparte.
16. In the light of above facts and circumstance we allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite parties are directed to refund the cost of Rs. 19,500/-(Rupees Nineteen thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are also directed to ay Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
- The complainant is directed to give back the defective bed to the opposite parties on receipt of refund amount along with compensation and the opposite parties are permitted to take back bed from the residence of the complainant .
The parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest for the above said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.
Dated this 5th day of July, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 & A2
Ext. A1 : Copy of tax invoice dated 29/08/2020 for Rs. 65,000/-.
Ext. A2 : Power of attorney executed by Mr. Ajesh Madathil in favour of the
Mr. Mohandas. C dated 22/10/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
