Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/82/2021
D.Senthil - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Principal Officer, Life Style International Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)
K.Vijaya Kumar
06 Mar 2023
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed : 25.02.2021
Date of Reservation : 21.02.2023
Date of Order : 06.03.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 82/2021
MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF MARCH 2023
D.Senthil,
Plot No,32, Sai Naga First Main Road,
Thoraipakkam,
Chennai – 600 097. ... Complainant
..Vs..
The Principal Officer,
Life Style International Pvt:td,
Express Avenue,
No.284-287 & 384-388, 49, 50L
Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai – 600 014. ... Opposite Party
******
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. K. Vijaya Kumar
Counsel for the Opposite Party : M/s. V.Samuthira Vijayan
On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,
1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.2,21,528/- with interest as applicable from the date of complaint till date of payment and cost of the present complaint and proceeding be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant
2. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
The complainant had purchased three furniture items from the opposite party’s shop Life Style International PVT LTD namely “DAVIS OFFICE CHAIR” Brown 2, new Montoya three-seater recline brown and 3) New Montoya two-seater recline – brown through Invoice No. 012881060043067 on 19/05/2019 with customer ID 20112536885 and after discount provided by the opposite party, he had paid the bill amount of Rs.84,850/-. The above said items were delivered to him on 23/05/2019. As the 1st item was found to be defective in the sense of the peeling of the materials used in the chair a complaint was sent through mail on 25/03/20and the opposite party instead of refunding the price of Rs.13,321.98 p towards this said item, had agreed to give a credit voucher to be used in their store for purchase of any other item. Accordingly, he had utilized the said credit voucher that too after a very long struggle and arguments after a gap of almost six months. With regard to the other two items, namely new Montoya three-seater and new Montoya two-seater which caused back pain when seated for long time as the cushion started caving in and the foam inside is very poor quality and he felt it as a defective one and had made a complaint of the same to the opposite party through customer care, which was acknowledged by the opposite party in their letter dated 24/12/20. On the said compliant made the opposite party sent an inspection team for inspection of the defect, only in the month of January 2020. After inspection it was informed to him that the defects pointed out were due to improper maintenance and there were no manufacturing defects and since the warranty period exist had agreed to attend repair service. As any sofa could be used only for sitting purpose, there is no position of maintenance required at least for certain years and the same does not require any change of spare parts like electronic or automobile items as well as periodical service by experts. After many reminders sent to the opposite parties, they have taken both the sofas on 08/02/2020 until which time the opposite party had not taken any effort to set right the defects. By email dates 11/02/2020 the opposite party had expressed their inconvenience in taking the sofas for repair with a delay. After repair on 15/02/2020 the sofas were delivered to him, as he was not satisfied with the repairs done and as defect continued, refused to accept the same and the same was taken back by the opposite party. He received a call from the opposite party regarding the condition of re-repair work, he visited their shop on 14/03/2020 to have a look about the condition of the sofas and its worthiness to take delivery of the same. Instead of showing the repaired sofas, the opposite party insisted to give consent to deliver the sofas and informed that the repaired sofas were in their warehouse and will be delivered from there to his house directly. Since he could not see the condition of the sofas after the second time repair, he refused to give consent to take delivery of the sofas, thereafter the opposite party advised him to visit their warehouse to see the repaired sofas for which he refused it is not his duty to visit their warehouse as he has already suffered a lot after paying a huge sum of money for the comfort of his family members. On the same day, the issue was discussed with the supervisor of the opposite party namely Mr. Suresh, who had orally assured to help in getting a store credit or exchange of sofas. Thereafter he sent a mail on 14/03/2020 regarding the issue he faced to 3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:- They are a fashion brand and have various retail outlets allover India. The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and the allegations and submissions are false, frivolous and an imaginary piece of thinking. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint upon the dispute involved as the same is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as defined in Sections 2(10) (f) (g) (i) (ii) and (o). The Complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail them.They admit the purchase of products, payments and delivery of products as mentioned in the complaint. With regard to peeling of materials in the Chair is not a manufacturing defect, as the same is not covered under Warranty clause of the User Manual Care Instructions Terms and Conditions, and the allegation made in this regard was denied. With regard to the subject Sofas the warranty against manufacturing defect is provided only for frame, spring and legs as per clause 2.1, further under clause 10 the warranty shall not apply if the damage or loss to the Product is caused due to factors mentioned in Clause 10.1 to 10.12 and the usage of the Complainant falls under clause 10.1 and 10.3, i.e., “10.1 : Natural wear and tear, 10.3 : Improper or inadequate maintenance of the product”. They had provided best quality product to the Complainant and it is the Complainant who had deliberately misused the product against the instructions provided in the User manual Care Instructions Terms and Conditions and made a false claim for illegal enrichment. The allegation that the defect in the chair has been accepted by them is refuted for being false, baseless and misconceived. The Peeling of the sofa is not covered under warranty terms, in spite of the same they had accepted the request of the Complainant to repair the sofas on 08.02.2020 and the same was done free of cost solely as a goodwill gesture and keeping customer interests in high priority and kept the product ready for delivery as of 15.02.2020, but the Complainant consistently refused to take the delivery of the sofas. The allegations that the Complainant had a very long struggle for 6 months to utilize the store credit issued towards the value of the Chair returned, was explained in their reply notice dated 03.02.2021. The Subject Sofas caused back pain and unfit for sitting was refuted as false, vexatious and baseless, as the Sofas they had supplied are best selling products in the market and no customer had complained about them till date. The alleged cushion sagginess and caving were primarily caused due to Complainant’s improper and inadequate maintenance against instructions given in the User Manual, which was provided to the Complainant at the time of purchase. Even their inspection team had examined the subject sofas and the alleged defect was due to Complainant’s improper and inadequate maintenance, which is purely of Complainant’s negligence. The allegation that a sofa needs no maintenance for certain years was false, wrong and misleading as the subject sofas require routine care as provided in the User Manual. Rough usage, improper/inadequate maintenance led to damage/defect to the subject sofas. It was denied that there was no effect from their side to pick up the furniture. It was reiterated that as the subject sofas does not suffer any manufacturing defect as a goodwill gesture they had accepted the request of the Complainant to repair the subject sofas on 08.02.2020 and rectified the same on 15.02.2020, though it was informed to the Complainant that the subject sofas were lying in their warehouse which entitled them to claim inventory carrying cost, they had not claimed the same till date. The allegations made by the Complainant which are not supported by valid evidence are denied and there was no deficiency of service on their part. The Subject sofas were rectified and ready for delivery from 15.02.2020 as the Complainant had not confirmed the Schedule of delivery till date resulting delay in delivering the subject sofas and not as alleged by the Complainant that the subject sofas were not rectified to his entire satisfaction. They had contacted the Complainant on 22.02.2020 to accept the delivery of the subject sofas and the same was refused by him. Having refused to accept the delivery, the Complainant after 8 months, i.e., on 10.10.2020 requested to issue a credit note / refund. Since the subject sofas has no manufacturing defects were picked up for rectification with his consent as a goodwill gesture, no question of issuing credit note /refund arise. It was denied that they had called the Complainant on 14.03.2020 after completion of Re-repair (second time repair) as frivolous and obnoxious, whereas when the Complainant was requested to visit their warehouse for a thorough inspection prior to the delivery of the subject sofas, the Complainant had refused to visit their warehouse to inspect the subject sofas were repaired and kept ready for delivery for the reasons best known to him. The assurance given by their staff was denied and left to the Complainant to prove the same. After their multiple attempts to contact him to ensure the delivery of the subject sofas, the Complainant had responded through mail dated 13.10.2020 wherein he had expressed his intention in not taking the sofas, hence it was clear that he had refused to accept the delivery of the rectified sofas. There is no deficiency of service, unfair trade practice on their part and mental agony suffered by the Complainant was false, the Complainant had approached with unclean hands and misconceived the facts with a malafide intention not only for illegal enrichment but also to malign their reputation. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6. The Opposite Party submitted its Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Party documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4.
Points for Consideration:-
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?
3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?
Point No.1:
It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased three furniture items from the opposite party namely 1) “DAVIS OFFICE CHAIR” Brown, 2)New Montoya three-seater recline brown and 3) New Montoya two-seater recline – brown through Invoice No. 012881060043067 on 19/05/2019 with customer ID 20112536885 and after discount provided by the opposite party, he had paid the bill amount of Rs.84,850/-, and the above said items were delivered to him on 23/05/2019 by the Opposite Party. It is also not in dispute that the opposite Party had given credit note in return of the Chair intimated to be defective and the Complainant had utilized the credit note issued by the Opposite Party towards purchase of other items from their store.
The contentions of the complainant are that he had purchased three furniture items from the opposite party namely 1) “DAVIS OFFICE CHAIR” Brown, 2) New Montoya three-seater recline brown and 3) New Montoya two-seater recline – brown through Invoice No. 012881060043067 on 19/05/2019 with customer ID 20112536885 and after discount provided by the opposite party, he had paid the bill amount of Rs.84,850/-. The above said items were delivered to him on 23/05/2019. As the 1st item was found to be defective in the sense of the peeling of the materials used in the chair a complaint was sent through mail on 25/03/2020 and the opposite party instead of refunding the price of Rs.13,321.98p towards this said item, had agreed to give a credit voucher to be used in their store for purchase of any other item. Accordingly, he had utilized the said credit voucher that too after a very long struggle and arguments after a gap of almost six months. Further contended that the other two items, namely new Montoya three-seater and new Montoya two-seater which caused back pain when seated for long time as the cushion started caving in and the foam inside is of very poor quality and he felt it as a defective one and had made a complaint of the same to the opposite party through customer care, which was acknowledged by the opposite party in their letter dated 24/12/2020. For which only in the month of January 2020 the opposite party sent an inspection team for inspection of the defect and on inspection it was informed that the defects pointed out were due to improper maintenance and there was no manufacturing defect and since the warranty period exist it was agreed to attend repair service. Further contended that as any sofa could be used only for sitting purpose, there is no position of maintenance required at least for certain years and the same does not require any change of spare parts like electronic or automobile items as well as periodical service by experts. After many reminders sent to the opposite parties, on 08/02/2020 they have taken both the sofas for repair until which time the opposite party had not taken any effort to set right the defects. Further contended that by email dated 11/02/2020 the opposite party had expressed their inconvenience in taking the sofas for repair with a delay. Though the Opposite Party delivered the Sofas after repair on 15/02/2020, as he was not satisfied with the repairs done and as defect continued, refused to accept the same and the same was taken back by the opposite party. Further contended that he had received a call from the opposite party regarding the condition of re-repair work, he visited their shop on 14/03/2020 to have a look about the condition of the sofas and its worthiness to take delivery of the same, but instead of showing the repaired sofas, the opposite party insisted to give consent to deliver the sofas and informed that the repaired sofas were in their warehouse and will be delivered from there to his house directly. Since he could not see the condition of the sofas after the second time repair, he refused to give consent to take delivery of the sofas, thereafter the opposite party advised him to visit their warehouse which is far away from their shop, if at all there was no manufacturing defect what was the rectification done that was in good condition as per the version of the Opposite Party, as it not obligatory for him to visit the warehouse at his expenses and directing him to visit the warehouse amounts to deficiency of service. Though it was intimated about the sagginess and caving of the foam of the sofas which caused back pain on 27.09.2019 itself which was admitted by the Opposite Party by their letter dated 24.12.2019 and the inspection made during January 2020 after a gap of 3 months and the sofas were picked only on 08.02.2020 after a gap of 4 months by the Opposite party, amounts to deficiency of service and that caused him great mental agony even after paying a huge amount for the comforts of his family members. Further contended that no user manual was not provided to him at the time of purchase. The act of not accepting the defects of the sofas in spite of his request and not repairing the sofas to his entire satisfaction and not keeping the repaired sofas in their showroom for inspection to inspect the repairs done and by unnecessarily directing him to visit their warehouse to take delivery of the same, amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The Contentions of the Opposite Party are that the dispute involved as the same is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as defined in Sections 2(10) (f) (g) (i) (ii) and (o). The peeling of materials in the Chair is not a manufacturing defect, as the same is not covered under Warranty clause of the User Manual Care Instructions Terms and Conditions. Further contended that with regard to the subject Sofas the warranty against manufacturing defect is provided only for frame, spring and legs as per clause 2.1, further under clause 10 the warranty shall not apply if the damage or loss to the Product is caused due to factors mentioned in Clause 10.1 to 10.2 and the usage of the Complainant falls under clause 10.1 and 10.3, i.e., “10.1 : Natural wear and tear, 10.3 : Improper or inadequate maintenance of the product”. Only the best quality product provided to the Complainant and it is the Complainant who had deliberately misused the product against the instructions provided in the User manual Care Instructions Terms and Conditions and made a false claim for illegal enrichment. The Peeling of the sofa is not covered under warranty terms, in spite of the same they had accepted the request of the Complainant to repair the sofas on 08.02.2020 and the same was done free of cost solely as a goodwill gesture and keeping customer interests in high priority and kept the product ready for delivery as of 15.02.2020, but the Complainant consistently refused to take the delivery of the sofas. They had clearly explained about all in their reply notice dated 03.02.2021. The Subject Sofas caused back pain and unfit for sitting was refuted as false, vexatious and baseless, as the Sofas they had supplied are best selling products in the market and no customer had complained about them till date. The alleged cushion sagginess and caving were primarily caused due to Complainant’s improper and inadequate maintenance against instructions given in the User Manual, which was provided to the Complainant at the time of purchase. Even their inspection team had examined the subject sofas and the alleged defect was due to Complainant’s improper and inadequate maintenance, which is purely of Complainant’s negligence. The subject sofas require routine care as provided in the User Manual. Rough usage, improper/inadequate maintenance led to damage/defect to the subject sofas. It was denied that there was no effect from their side to pick up the furniture. It was reiterated that as the subject sofas does not suffer any manufacturing defect as a goodwill gesture they had accepted the request of the Complainant to repair the subject sofas on 08.02.2020 and rectified the same on 15.02.2020, though it was informed to the Complainant that the subject sofas were lying in their warehouse which entitled them to claim inventory carrying cost, they had not claimed the same till date. The Subject sofas were rectified and ready for delivery from 15.02.2020 as the Complainant had not confirmed the Schedule of delivery till date resulting delay in delivering the subject sofas and not as alleged by the Complainant that the subject sofas were not rectified to his entire satisfaction. They had contacted the Complainant on 22.02.2020 to accept the delivery of the subject sofas and the same was refused by him. Having refused to accept the delivery, the Complainant after 8 months, i.e., on 10.10.2020 requested to issue a credit note / refund. Since the subject sofas has no manufacturing defects were picked up for rectification with his consent as a goodwill gesture, no question of issuing credit note /refund arise. It was denied that they had called the Complainant on 14.03.2020 after completion of Re-repair (second time repair) as frivolous and obnoxious, whereas when the Complainant was requested to visit their warehouse for a thorough inspection prior to the delivery of the subject sofas, the Complainant had refused to visit their warehouse to inspect the subject sofas were repaired and kept ready for delivery for the reasons best known to him. No assurance was given by their staff was denied and left to the Complainant to prove the same. After their multiple attempts to contact him to ensure the delivery of the subject sofas, the Complainant had responded through mail dated 13.10.2020 wherein he had expressed his intention in not taking the sofas, hence it was clear that he had refused to accept the delivery of the rectified sofas. The allegations made by the Complainant which are not supported by valid evidence are denied and there was no deficiency of service on their part. There is no deficiency of service, unfair trade practice on their part and mental agony suffered by the Complainant was false, the Complainant had approached with unclean hands and misconceived the facts with a malafide intention not only for illegal enrichment but also to malign their reputation and the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed by him.
On discussion made above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Opposite Party though pleaded that the subject sofas, namely, Montoya Three seater and two seater does not suffer any manufacturing defect as inspected by their team during January 2020 on the Complaint given on 27.09.2019 as admitted in the reply Notice dated 03.02.2021, Ex.B-3, sent by the opposite Party to the Complainant’s advocate, after a clear gap of 3 months the complaint of the complainant was found to be attended by the opposite Party. Further it is to be noted that the delivery of the subject sofas were admitted to be made on 23.05.2019 to the Complainant, within a span of four months, because of the defect in the subject sofas the complainant sustained back pain due to sagginess and caving of the foam of the Sofa would clearly establish the quality of the materials used in the subject sofas, though routine care to the subject sofas being branded to be taken the Opposite Party had failed to instruct the Complainant about the maintenance to be taken to the subject sofas and instead had pleaded that the Complainant had been provided with the User Manual at the time of purchase, which was denied by the Complainant. Further it is to be noted when the inspection team of the Opposite Party found that there was no manufacturing defect and having taken the subject sofas for repairs on 08.02.2020 after a clear gap of 4 months from the date of complaint lodged by the Complainant, ie., on 27.09.2019,would clearly shows that there were some defects in the subject sofas that has to be rectified by the Opposite Party.
Further the contentions of the Complainant is to be noted that though after repair the subject sofas were delivered to the Complainant and as the defects were not rectified to his satisfaction the subject sofas were returned for re-repair to the Opposite party, is not supported by any material evidence, hence the same is not legally sustainable, and at the same time the contentions of the Opposite Party that the subject sofas which were taken by them on 08.02.2020 for carrying the repairs were made ready on 15.02.2020 and had waited for consent/acceptance for the delivery of the subject sofas till February 2021 even after sending their reply notice to the legal notice caused by the Complainant, is not acceptable and not legally sustainable, as the Opposite party has not taken any efforts except by sending mails to the Complainant seeking acceptance for delivery and no efforts has been taken in the manner known to the law by the Opposite Party to deliver the subject sofas after repairs to the Complainant, if at all the Opposite Party would have carried out the repair works as a goodwill gesture at free of cost though the defects found were not covered under the warranty, would clearly proves that the Opposite Party had acted lethargically and negligently to avoid the defects that exist in the subject sofas delivered to the Complainant during the warranty period and thereby had committed deficiency of service by not rectifying the defects in the subject sofas and deliver the same after repairs to the Complainant. It is also to be noted that the Opposite Party had failed to provide the subject sofas after repair in their showroom, when the Complainant was asked to visit their office instead of their warehouse to inspect the repaired sofas of the Complainant, would also prove the lethargic attitude of the Opposite party. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service and the Opposite party had caused serious mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.
Point No.2:
As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.71,528/- towards refund for two sofas, namely New Montoya three seater Recliner Brown and New Montoya two seater Recliner Brown and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant, along with cost of Rs.5,000/-. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.71,528/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Eight Only) towards refund for New Montoya three Seater Recliner – Brown and New Montoya two seater Recliner – Brown purchased by the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the above amount of Rs.71,528/- shall carry interest @6% p.a from the date of receipt of the order till the date of realization.
In the result this complaint is allowed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 6th of March 2023.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 19.05.2019 | Bill/Invoice for purchase of 3 sofas |
Ex.A2 | - | Complaint through mil for chair with photos |
Ex.A3 | 12.10.2020 | Proof of store credit of Rs.13321.98 for office chair exchange |
Ex.A4 | 11.02.2020 | Pickup delay mail correspondence |
Ex.A5 | 17.03.2020 | SMS acknowledgement by Mr.Suresh supervisor for E mail complaint |
Ex.A6 | 24.12.2020 | Reply letter acknowledging the receipt for complaint letter dated 05.12.2020 on sofas |
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-
Ex.B1 | - | Copy of Board Resolution dated 19.03.2013 in favour of Mr.Ramaprasad S and letter of Authorization dated 16.04.2021 in favour of Mr.Dhanasekar Narayanamurthy |
Ex.B2 | - | Copy of Use Manual, Care Instructions and terms and conditions issued to the Complainant |
Ex.B3 | - | Copy of Reply to Legal Notice dated 03.02.2021` |
Ex.B4 | - | Copy of email communications |
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.