BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of September 2011
Filed on : 25/01/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 52/11
Between
G. Oonnoonny, : Complainant
S/o. Late K.G. Varghese, (party-in-person)
Flat No. Q-4, Galaxy Hamilton,
Chilavanoor road, Elamkulam,
Kadavanthra P.O.,
Kochi-682 020.
And
1. The Manager, : Opposite parties
Ageenco Fibre Foam Pvt. Ltd. (By Adv. Madhu N. Namboothiripad,
(Temptation Mattresses) Menon & Pai, L.S. Press road,
Sannidhi road, Ravipuram, Ernakulam, Kochi-18)
Kochi-682 -016.
2. The Managing Director,
Agreeco Fibre Foam Pvt. Ltd.,
(Temptation Mattresses)
Baliapatam, Kannur-670 010.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
On 04-12-2008 the complainant purchased four fiber form beds through Indian Naval canteen services, Kochi at a total price of Rs. 18,664.46 and took delivery of the same from the 1st opposite party. After 6 months the mattresses became unusable and at the instance of the complainant, in July 2009 the opposite parties replaced with fresh ones. Since the same complaint of sagging and shirnking of the bed repeated on 28/11/2009 the opposite parties again replaced 2 beds. In spite of repeated oral as well as written requests the other two damaged beds were not replaced. The mattresses replaced on 28-11-2009 were as well damaged. The defects in the mattresses caused due to manufacturing defects. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the mattresses with 12% interest p.a. from 04-12-2008 till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.
2. Version of the opposite parties.
The opposite party is certified with the Bureau of Indian standards. The mattresses supplied by the opposite party are of supreme quality. After receipt of a complaint the opposite party inspected and replaced the mattresses with new one on a gesture of goodwill, though the defects developed were on account of the complainants careless handling. At the instance of the complainant on 28-11-2009 the opposite party inspected the mattresses and repaired them. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as claimed for.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 were marked on his side. The witnesses for the opposite parties were examined as DWs 1 & 2. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the opposite party.
4. The points that arose for consideration are
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the mattresses under dispute?
ii. Costs of the proceedings.
5. Points Nos. i&ii. Admittedly on 04-12-2008 the complainant purchased 4 mattresses from the Naval Canteen at a price of Rs. 18,664.46 evident from Ext. A1 receipt. According to the complainant the opposite party replaced the mattresses after 5 months from the date of purchase. It is stated that the replaced mattresses as well suffer from various defects and the opposite party again replaced 2 mattresses out of the 4 mattresses. It is also stated that the opposite party had repaired the remaining 2 mattresses. It is further stated that the mattresses supplied by the opposite parties suffer from manufacturing defects and he is entitled to get refund of the price from the opposite parties.
6. The opposite parties admitted that at the out set they have replaced 2 mattresses and repaired the remaining ones. It is stated that though there was no manufacturing defect the opposite party as a gesture of goodwill replaced the repaired one . According to the opposite parties the defects have been caused to the mattresses only due to the mishandling by the complainant and the opposite party is not liable to refund the price of the same.
7. In Ext. A8 letter dated 04-12-2010 the opposite parties stated that they have tested the defective mattresses at their factory and found that there was no manufacturing defect. However they failed to produce the report before this Forum. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has highlighted his grievances before the opposite party during the warranty period. No explanation is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties as to the reason for the frequent defects. Admittedly the opposite parties had to replace 3 mattresses out of four which had been purchased by the complainant. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the remaining one as well has been repaired by them which only goes to show that all four suffered from inherent manufacturing defect.
8. A mattress of whatever value is considered a comfort for life by any consumer. A disturbance there to is serious as much as it causes discomfort which is not at all foreseen. As in any case as this the consumer had foreseen a long term comfort of his purchase which evidently fell short for reasons evidenced above. Though the opposite party has stated that they have repaired the mattresses defective it is not evident how they have done so and there is no reason as to why that the problem subsisted.
9. In view of the above we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the opposite parties replace the mattresses in question with new ones of the same model with fresh warranty with a word of caution that this forum need not be approached with a similar complaint. Ordered accordingly.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of September 2011.
