By:Smt. E.Ayishakutty, Member.
Complainant is a doctor by profession and working at E.M.S hospital in Perinthalmanna. On seeing the advertisement of opposite party he contacted opposite party No1 who is the dealer of “Style Spa” furniture which is manufactured by opposite party No2, for purchasing some furniture which he was needed to his house. Accordingly opposite party No1 supplied at his residence in perinthalmanna on 30/05/07. Complainant purchased Fiesta- Dining Table (p1) Metal glass- 999565,Fiesta-Dining Chair ( chrome Plated) 999575, Junior- Wooden Bunk Bed DCB 999802, Appollo- Mobile Dresser- 641165, Appollo- wall Unit 665-643665, Indiana- Bed-180x200-024618, Indiana-Storage Drawer- 024403 from opposite party No1 and paid its price After a few months of purchase the leg of the dining table was detached from its top and became unfit for use. He informed the complaint to opposite party No1 and he sent a staff to complainant's house to rectify the defect. But they couldn't set right it. Complainant demanded several times to rectify the defect or replace the dining set, but no use then he sent a lawyer notice to both opposite parties. But they were not ready to rectify or replace it. Hence he filed this petition before the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
Complainant prays to direct opposite parties to replace the furniture which are made defective or refund the price which he had paid to the dining table. He also request to direct opposite party No1 to pay Rs. 25000/- as compensation along with cost.
Opposite parties filed joined version. They denie the allegations and averments of complainant except those which specifically admitted opposite party denie the averment of complainant that he telephonic ally contacted opposite party No1 and he would replay that he would supply the furniture at perinthalmanna etc. Complainant purchased the items which he claimed directly from the show room at calicut after his satisfaction and took it as per his wish. Opposite party admits the purchase of the products. He states that the furniture carries warranty for one year from the date of sale except to the glass and mirrors. Warranty covers to the normal usage and service. It is incorrect that complainant contacted him earlier. He had not informed the defect of the furniture till the date. The defect if any mentioned are not a manufacturing defect at all it is only to the improper usage of the items. Opposite party No2 had received the lawyer notice sent by the complainant. But opposite party No1 had not received it. After receiving the notice the second opposite party contacted the complainant through 1st opposite party and instructed him to bring the defective furniture to the showroom of opposite party No1 for inspection. But instead of that the complainant demanded to return the table and chairs and he wants to buy a new sofa set in exchange of the table without any cost which was denied by opposite party No1. Due to the above said vengeance complainant filed this false complaint to degrade the opposite parties. There is no cause of action has been aroused either in 31/5/07 or in any further period. There is no manufacturing defect to the dining table. Opposite parties are not liable to replace the furniture and to pay any compensation for this belated claim. Hence the complaint is liable to to be dismissed with cost of opposite parties.
Complainant filed affidavit as part of evidence. Documents marked as Ext A1 to A4. Opposite parties filed counter affidavit. Ext B1 to B3 marked on behalf of them. Complainant was examined as Pw1 and opposite party No1 was examined as Dw1 No notes of argument filed both sides.
The points for consideration
i Whether there is any cause of action arises to entertain the complaint under this Forum?
ii Whether opposite parties are deficient in their service to the complainant?
iii If so what is the relief and cost.
Point I
Opposite party No1 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No2 who is the manufacture of “Style Spa” furniture. The allegation of the complainant is that on seeing the advertisement of opposite party through media he contacted them to purchase some furniture to his house and opposite party No1 agreed to supply the furniture in his residence at perinthalmanna in malappuram district. Accordingly the furniture which he ordered was supplied his house on 30/5/07 After a few months of purchase the dining set among the furniture’s were got damaged. The leg of the table was detached from its glass top and rendered unfit for use. Complainant condacted opposite party No1 and he sent his staff to set right the table but he could not rectify the defect. Opposite party No1 didn't rectify the defect or replaced the product even though the complainant demanded it in several times . At last he sent a registered lawyer notice to both opposite parties, but no effect. After all the attempt he filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
Opposite parties content that the complaint is barred by limitation and more over he content that there is no cause of action to entertain this complaint under the jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainant purchased the alleged furniture on 30/05/07. He filed this complaint before the Forum on 4/9/10 only. So the time limit to file the complaint before the Forum is exceeded. But complainant states that the defect to the alleged dining set was occurred after a few month of purchase. At the time of purchase opposite party No1 assured replacement for any manufacturing defect with in the period of guaranty. He offered 15 years guaranty to the furniture except glass and mirror. The defect was immediately informed to the first opposite party and he sent a staff to set right the defect. But he couldn't make good it. As per the direction of opposite party No1 the defective dining table was taken to the office of opposite party No1 for repair. opposite party says that the defect was occurred due to the mishandling of the product by the complainant . Complainant sent a lawyer notice to both opposite parties for asking replacement or rectification but no use. He filed the complaint before the Forum after taking every effort. It has taken time for these attempt. Complainant trusted opposite party and believe that he would get the dining set replaced or repaired soon. We hold that the delay caused to file this complaint before the Forum is not willful and intensional. So the delay for filing the complaint is excused.
Another contention raised by opposite parties are about the cause of action of complaint under this Forum. Opposite party No2 the manufacturer of “Style Spa” furniture whose head office is at Chennai. He admits that they have hundred of branches/ showrooms all over India. Which includes 10 branches in kerala. Opposite party No1 is one among them which works in calicut. Opposite parties give wide publicity to their furniture through medias Seeing the advertisement complainant contacted them and purchased the furniture. Complainant states that Opposite party No1 offered him to deliver the furniture which he purchased at perinthalmanna. Accordingly opposite party No1 supplied it at his residence in perinthalmanna on 30/5/2007. Ext B1 and Ext B2 is the delivery invoice which was prepared by opposite party No1 to issue at the time of delivering the alleged furniture to the consignee the complainant. The original bill was issued to him on 31/5/07. Opposite party No1 admitted it at the time of cross examination so it is clear that opposite party No1 supplied the alleged furniture at the residence of complainant in perinthalmanna which is under the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence part of cause of action arises with in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
Opposite party denies the manufacturing defects of the dining table which he sold to the complainant. Complainant alleges that after a few months of purchase the leg of the dining set was detached from the top of the glass but he could not fix it due to the manufacturing complaint. After getting notice from the Forum opposite party No1 sent a technician to complainants house to set right the defective dining set, but he could not repair it. He states that it was laid in a corner with out use. Complainant disposed in the box that almost all the furniture which he purchased from opposite party is not fit for use. But the major complaint occurred to the dining set only. Complainant affirmed in the affidavit as well as in the witness box that the defect occured to the dining table after a few months of purchase and opposite party No1 sent his staff to rectify it. As per the direction of him complainant has taken the furniture to his office at calicut for repair. Opposite party No1 admits that he sent a technician to complainant's house to rectify the defect of the alleged furniture but he couldn't make good it. It proved that the alleged dining set is having some manufacturing defects and it occurred even in the guaranty period itself. But opposite parties not cared to rectify the defect or replace the product even though the complainant made repeated request.
Selling the defective goods by giving wide publicity and offering good quality and guaranty to replacement etc. amounts deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of a trader or service provider. Hence we hold that both opposite parties are deficient in their service and committed unfair trade practice towards the complainant.
Hence complainant is liable to get his defective goods replaced from opposite parties.
In the result the complaint is allowed and we direct both opposite parties jointly and severely to replace the defective dining set along with cost of Rs.2000/- with in one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated this 20th day of April 2012
C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTHAF KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1 PW1 : Muraleedharan
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1 : Invoice dated 31 may 2007
Ext.A2(s) : Lawyer Notice with Postal Receipt
Ext.A3 : Acknowledgement Card.
Ext.A4 : Registered Cover with A.D.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : DW1
DW1 : Manager world Furniture.
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : ExtB1 to B3
ExtB1 : Copy of invoice No 88 dated 30/5/07.
ExtB2 : Copy of invoice No 89 dated 30/5/07.
ExtB3 : Instructions of assembly of furniture.
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
