IN THECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM

Present

     Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

             Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

        Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member

CC No. 349/2012

Monday the 5^th  day of January, 2015

Petitioner                                              : Arun.S

                                                              Kallarvelil House,

                                                              Vempally PO,
                                                              Kanakkari village, Meenachil Tq,

                                                              Kottayam  

                                                          (By Adv. Fazil Rahiman & C.R.Sindhumol)

Vs

Opposite parties                                 :    The Managing Director,

                                                               Tip top Furniture,

                                                               Kottakkal, Malappuram Dist.

                                                          2) The Branch Head,

                                                              Tip Top Furniture,

                                                               SH Mount PO, MC Road,

                                                               Kumaranalloor, Kottayam.

                                                          (By Adv. P.N.Ashok Babu)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member

          The case of the complainant filed on 28/11/12 is as follows.

            The complainant on 3-11-11 purchased  4 items of wooden furniture from the second opposite party manufactured by  the first opposite party by paying Rs.1,01,000/-.  According to the complainant among the wooden articles purchased one wooden  Dining table with glass on top for Rs.18,700/-, had cracks on its glass top after 3 months from the date of purchase.  Then the complainant intimated the matter to the second opposite party and the  second opposite party assured that they would  replace it with a new table at free of cost.  But later the cracks developed and the glass was  broken into pieces.  Then the complainant intimated the matter to the second opposite party but the opposite parties were not ready to replace the table as assured by them.  According to the complainant the opposite parties supplied  a low quality  furniture for  a very huge price and the act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

          The opposite parties filed version admitting the purchase of wooden Dining Table with glass on top.  According to the opposite parties they, provided  warranty only for  the wooden furniture  which were manufactured by them. At the time of purchase it was intimated to the complainant that, the warranty applies only to the wooden parts and would not cover the glass top.  According to the opposite parties they were not made any assurance that they would replace with a new table on free of cost.  According to the opposite parties, if the glass was broken into pieces it was  only due to the careless use of the complainant because the opposite parties use only high quality of glasses.  According to the opposite parties, since the glasses  are not manufactured by the opposite party, they are not able to provide any replacement guarantee,  there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

Points for considerations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consist of the deposition of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 documents from the side of complainant, and deposition of DW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 documents from the side of opposite parties.

Point No.1

          The crux of the complainant’s case is that, the glass top of the wooden table purchased by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party had cracks after 3 months from the date of it’s purchase.  Later the cracks developed and ultimately it  was broken into pieces.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the furniture.  Even though, the complainant has a specific case that the opposite party used a low quality non-lasting glass.  Nothing has brought out by the complainant to prove that the glass was made out  of inferior quality.  The complainant has no allegation with regard to the quality of the wooden table.  The only allegation is with regard to the glass top.  Nothing has produced by the complainant to prove that,  there  was warranty for the glass items.  In the lack of evidence,  we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  So point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2

          In view of the findings in Point No.1, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost as ordered.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 5^th day of January, 2015.

           Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President                 Sd/-

          Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member            Sd/-

          Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member                Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of complainant

Ext.A1-Special Power of Attorney

Ext.A2-Copy of quotation dtd 3/11/11

Ext.A3-Copy of Lawyer’s notice dtd 11/9/12

Ext.A4-Postal receipt

Ext.A5-AD Card

Ext.A6-Photograph

Documents of opposite party

Ext.B1-Warranty card

Ext.B2-Photocopy of warranty card

Ext.B3-Copy of retail invoice No.93 dtd 1/12/11

PW1-Subramanian A.N

DW1-Jamaludheen

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.