Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/86/2016

A.Farhana Begum - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Kurl-On Sales Office - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

                                                                           Date of Complaint  : 02.03.2016

                                                                 Date of Order         : 20.09.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,               :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                             :  MEMBER – I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                                     

C.C.No. 86/ 2016

THIS TUESDAY  20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

A.     Farhana Begum,

W/o. P.U. Nagendiran,

No.26/28, Ashtalakshmi Nagar

2^nd Street,

Valasaravakkam,

Chennai 600 087.                                                   .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

1.  The Kurl-on Sales Office, No.194, Ground Floor, Pycroft Road, Chennai – 14.   2. The Rathna Store, Pondy Bazar, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.                                                     .. Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant             :    Party in person.           

For the opposite party          :    Exparte.    

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.10,500/- being cost of mattress, to replace with a new mattress with guaranty and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.  

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the opposite parties were set exparte on 20.4.2016  & 30.6.2016

3.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4  filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant in person.

4.     The complainant contended that she purchased  Kurl-on Bed Mattress for a sum of Rs.10,500/- on 19.3.2012 and paid the full amount on the same day.   Unfortunately within one year of period the mattress spring has been spoiled and the Mattress was compressed totally and the complainant was shocked and intimated the same to the opposite parties through phone.  After the worker from the opposite parties inspected the product they told that the spring was spoiled due to manufacturing defect since the quality of the spring and the sponges were low quality and therefore the entire mattress has to be changed.  But the opposite parties did not comply the assurance giving by them.  She also sent a letter to the opposite parties either to repair or to replace the mattress the said letter was also received by them but not replaced the product.   The opposite parties collected huge amount for the product but not used quality materials for them.    The opposite parties have  cheated by way of evading from either repairing or replacing the defective mattress.  Hence she sent legal notice to the opposite parties on 14.1.2016 and the same was received by them on 16.1.2016 but there was no reply and the opposite parties also did not take any action to rectify the defect.    Hence the complainant filed the above complaint   directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,500/- towards the cost of the defective mattress, to replace with a new mattress, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and also cost of the complaint. 

5.     It is evidenced through Ex.A1 that the complainant had purchased Kurl-on Bed Mattress on 19.3.2012 from the 2^nd opposite party on payment of cash.     

6.     The grievance of the complainant is that unfortunately within one year of period the mattress spring has been spoiled,   the mattress were compressed totally and when the complainant intimated the same to the opposite parties through phone.  After the workers from the opposite parties inspected the product they told that the spring was spoiled due to manufacturing defect since the quality of the spring and the sponges were low quality and therefore the entire mattress has to be changed.  Though she made several phone calls, letter, and legal notice the opposite party failed to take action. 

7.     In respect of the above grievance though the complainant stated in her proof affidavit that she filed a complaint to the customer care regarding the defective mattress and the opposite parties also gave  complaint No.TN.55194 on 2013 and also the opposite party staff gave an inspection copy slip during inspection and demanded to pay 25% of the amount for replacement for which she gave them a cheque for the said amount and subsequently when she changed her address and intimated to them the opposite party gave fresh complaint No.TN80657  there is no any documentary proof on record to establish the same.    The complainant had also stated that she had sent a legal notice to the opposite party which has been received by them on 16.1.2016 for which she relied on the Ex.A3 & Ex.A4.   On perusal of the said document it reveals that the complainant had not filed the copy of the legal notice.  Whereas she has filed the postal receipt for having sent the legal notice and the postal track receipt for proof of delivery of the article.    However the complainant submitted that she had explained the grievances about the defective mattress in the legal notice sent to the opposite party.  Moreover it reveals from the Ex.A2 i.e. the warranty card that there is five years of warranty for the product.   Therefore taking into account of the issuance of legal notice and subsequently filing of this complaint it is construed that the complaint mentioned product was defective within warranty period.  As such we are of the opinion that the complaint is also filed within limitation period.    

8.     The opposite party on receipt of legal notice ought to have replied or rectified the defect in the product or replaced the defective mattress as per warranty.  But the opposite party had not initiated any such steps to comply the grievance of the complainant.   Hence to that extent it is clear that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service.  

9.     Further the opposite party also not appeared before this forum to refute the contention of the complainant but remained exparte.    

10.    However considering the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the mattress is an used one.  Hence the relief claimed by the complainant for refund of entire cost of the mattress or replacement of new mattress is not sustainable at this stage.   The compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant, whereas considering the facts and circumstances of the case she is entitled only for just and reasonable compensation. 

11.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service to the extent of not repairing the defective mattress.  Therefore the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for their deficiency in service.   Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. 

        In the result the complaint is partly allowed the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the litigation to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above said compensation amount of (Rs.3,000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment. 

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 20^th   day of  September   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 19.3.2012  - Copy of purchase bill.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of warranty card.

Ex.A3- 14.1.2016  - Copy of legal notice to the opposite party.

Ex.A4- 16.1.2016  - Copy of tracking of article received.  

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-         

 

.. Nil ..   (exparte)

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.