By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to replace the defective bed and to get cost and compensation due to the supply of defective bed.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a bed from opposite party No.1 on 04.10.2014 after giving Rs.4,400/- which is manufactured by opposite party No.2. After using some days the bed shows some defects ie the height of the bed abnormally got down. The complainant believe that the cause of the defects is only due to the manufacturing defect. It was noticed to the opposite party No.1 several times and asked to replace the bed. The opposite party No.1 has not responded. The complainant used the bed as its offered standard only a few days. The supply of non standard item for a complainant and no proper response from the opposite parties are clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Due to the use of a defective bed the complainant and his pregnant wife caused back pain, much difficulty and inconvenience. When these facts were reported to opposite party No.1 he ridiculed the complainant, this caused much mental agony also. Hence prayed before the Forum to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective bed with new one and to pay cost and compensation due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
3. Notices were served to opposite parties and they entered in appearance and filed version. Opposite party No.1 filed version stating that this opposite party is never informed about the defects of the bed by the complainant orally and or with any letter. The allegation in the complaint that the 'bed' is manufactured by using substandard materials is false and fabricated only for the sake of this complaint. The complainant made such allegation without any merits or without any bonafide. Hence the complainant is liable to prove the same. Moreover the 'bed' which sold to the complainant is not suffered any kind of manufacturing defects as alleged in the complaint. The complainant made such allegations only to grab sympathy of this honorable forum. The allegation that the complainant suffered back pain due to the 'bed' is not true and falsely fabricated allegation only. The same time this respondent denies the allegation raised in the complaint that the pregnant wife of the complainant faced various physical difficulties due to the use of the bed. This respondent strongly denies the allegation made in the complaint that the complainant suffered mental agony as well as economic loss due to the use of this bed. This respondent never committed any default in service or traded any substandard products, or cheated any consumer by giving fake promises or any unlawful trade practices as alleged in the complaint. Therefore this respondent not liable to pay any compensation or cost of proceedings to the complaint. This opposite party is not manufactured the product, he is only selling the product and acting according to the terms and conditions of the manufacturing Company. So we have have no responsibility to replace the product and any manufacturing defect is proved this opposite party will do all efforts to replace the item after intimating the manufacturing company. The real intention of the complainant is to create defame to this respondent, and to cause irreparable damages to this respondent, and to somehow obtain a new bed from this respondent along with unlawful enrichment. Therefore this petition does not deserve any merits, hence liable to be dismissed.
4. Opposite party No.2 filed version stating that the complainant so far not approached this respondent or its dealer, or any agents with such complaint or demanded back for replacement of the 'bed' with a new one. This respondent is ready to replace the 'bed' with a new one; if found any manufacturing defects. The allegation in the complaint that the 'bed' is manufactured by using substandard materials is false and fabricated only for the sake of this complaint. The complainant made such allegation without any merits or without any bonafide. Hence the complainant is liable to prove the same. Moreover the 'bed' which sold to the complainant is not suffered any kind of manufacturing defects as alleged in the complaint. The complainant made such allegations only to grab sympathy of this honorable forum. The allegation that the complainant suffered back pain due to the 'bed' is not true and falsely fabricated allegation only. The same time this respondent denies the allegation raised in the complaint that the pregnant wife of the complainant faced various physical difficulties due to the use of the bed. This respondent strongly denies the allegation made in the complaint that the complainant suffered mental agony as well as economic loss due to the use of this bed. This respondent never committed any default in service or traded any substandard products, or cheated any consumer by giving fake promises or any unlawful trade practices as alleged in the complaint. Therefore this respondent not liable to pay any compensation or cost of proceedings to the complaint. The real intention of the complainant is to create defame to this respondent, and to cause irreparable damages to this respondent, and to somehow obtain a new bed from this respondent along with unlawful enrichment. Therefore this petition does not deserve any merits, hence liable to be dismissed.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the bill for Rs.4,400/- issued by opposite party to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has not adduced any oral evidence. Opposite party No.2 submitted that the disputed bed is replaced with new one and complainant acknowledged the receipt also.
6. On perusal of complaint, versions and document the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the
side of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
7. Point No.1:- The opposite party No.2 has admitted in the version that he is ready to replace the disputed bed and it is replaced also. It reveals that the item seems sub standard one. At this circumstances the non reporting of the issue to the opposite party No.2 by the opposite party No.1 is a clear case of deficiency of service. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
8. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.1, he is liable to pay cost and compensation to the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the same.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) as cost of the proceedings. This Order must be complied by the opposite party No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the whole sum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of August 2015.
Date of Filing:08.01.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Sarath Jishy Singh. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Bill. Dt:04.10.2014.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
