Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/3/2022

S. Bhuvaneswari - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Home centre by Lifestyle, Lifestyle International Pvt., Ltd. Rep by its Managing Director/Manag - Opp.Party(s)

S. Bhuvaneswari

03 May 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:10.12.2021

  Date of Reservation     :13.04.2023

  Date of Order              :03.05.2023

          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.03/2022

WEDNESDAY,THE 03^rd DAY OF MAY 2023

S. Bhuvaneswari,

Luxe Apartment No-S3, 2^nd Floor,

MCN Nagar Extn.

Thoraipakkam,

Chennai - 600 097.                                                         .. Complainant.

-Vs-

M/s. Home Centre by Lifestyle,

Lifestyle International Pvt Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director/Manager,

Shop No.284-287, No. 49-50L, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai - 600 014.                                                       .. Opposite Party.

* * * * *

Counsel for the Complainant         : M/s. R. Bhavani Priya

 

Counsel for Opposite Party            : M/s. V. Samuthiravijayan, L.Siva,

                                                                Surendran  

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for Complainant and the counsel for the Opposite Party this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by  Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to refund the entire cost paid for the purchase of 3 Seater Reclinder Sofa for a sum of Rs.40,455/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase the product and till the date of disposal of the complaint and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards as compensation for the mental agony underwent by the Complainant due to the deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Party along with a cost of Rs.50,000/-.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant purchased 3 Seater Recliner Sofa Sets from the Opposite. Party, viz.:- ITEM No; 1000007305494,- 3 Seater Recliner Sofa, all made of leather and fabric, at a total cost of Rs.40,455/- vide Order dated 23.10.2020, with Invoice No.012881010090962 and paid an amount of Rs. 40,455/-. The Complainant purchased the above said Sofa Sets believing the Opposite Party's words that it is a genuine leather and fabric material. The Sofa Sets were delivered on very next day to the Complainant's home. The Complainant purchased the Sofa Sets for their elegance, beauty, comfort and style.

2.     The Sofa Sets were working in a condition from the date of purchase to till 8 months only without any issues. In the month of September, 2021, the leather and fabric upholstery in the three Seater Sofa leather started peeling off with poor quality leather delivered to the Complainant. Therefore, a complaint was lodged with the Opposite Party immediately on noticing the defects. The Complaint was not promptly attended by the persons of the Opposite Party. The Sofa was made of leather and fabric but when the Sofa started peeling off, Opposite Party does not insist on the replacing with an inferior quality material, fabric material, instead of pure leather. All the efforts to get it replaced with a leather materials did not yield any positive response from the Opposite Party.

3.     The Complainant purchased all the Sofa Sets made with leather and fabric and when one of the Sofa Sets started peeling off, within the warranty period, it is having been informed immediately about the peeling off the Opposite Party over phone and visited in person requested to replace it, with a product of the same quality rather than an inferior one. The elegance and the beauty of the room itself is destroyed, if one off the Sofa set is of fabric material while others are of high quality leather product. Hence the Complainant and the Complainant's family members was put to intense mental agony and sufferings. The very purpose of purchasing a high quality product at an exorbitant cost is defeated and the Complainant had to suffer for no fault on the Complainant’s part.

4.     The Opposite Party did not take any effective steps to the Complainant’s email request to rectify the defective sofa sets with fabric material instead of pure leather. The Complainant also sent email dated 28.09.2021 insisting on refund or replacing with leather and fabric material. The Opposite Party replied with email stating that the ticket has been raised and problem will be resolved within 48 Hours and they never done anything. All the efforts taken by the Complainant have gone in vain.

5.     Hence the Complainant sent an email to the Opposite Party and National Consumer online grievances. The Opposite Party neither replaced the manufacturing defective Sets nor refunded the entire amount with compensation for mental agony, stress, hardship to the Complainant, thus admitting to the claims of the Complainant.

6.     When the product developed defects within the warranty period without any negligence on the part of the Complainant, it is duty of the Opposite Party to refund or replace the same with same quality material rather than inferior quality which is also covered under the Warranty issued by the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint.

 

II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in Brief:

7.     The Complainant purchased Three Seater Recliner on 23.10.2020. It was not purchased on their words and the said sofa set was purchased out of her own volition and there was no manufacturing defect at the time of selling of the product and the product was in top quality condition when it was sold.

8.  The complainant informed the company about alleged defects on 24.09.2021 that is about 331 days after the purchase of the Products. That no documents have been filed by the Complainant showing the deterioration of the products. They being consumer friendly company initiated the inspection of the products against the Complaint No. 68179. That the service representative of the company never acknowledged the damages to the products and the same is false and baseless. That there was no manufacturing defects in the product which was also communicated to the Complainant on 30.09.2021 vide email.

9.     The technician of the company never acknowledged the damages to the products or get it replaced is false and misleading. It is submitted that the product was of top most quality and no manufacturing defect is there in the product. Further the complaint is also not maintainable as per Clause 15 of the Fabric of Sofa Set terms and conditions.

10.    There is no ground or documents filed by the Complainant to prove Manufacturing defect in the product. All the averments are make believe as the complaint of the complainant has been attended by them and since there was no manufacturing defects on the product it cannot be replaced. The Complainant has tried to make out a false case against them with a view to extort money from them illegally.

11.  There is no deficiency of service on their part as the products provided to the complainant have no manufacturing defects. That in turn the complainant is liable to pay them cost for filing false and frivolous case. No cause of action ever arose against them as the complaint is false and the averments, statements, submissions and allegation made in the complaint are not only vexatious in nature but also misrepresentation of facts. There is no question of refunding the cost of the products or replacing the products that needs to reply from them being matter of records. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III.      The Complainant has filed her proof affidavit and Written Arguments,  in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A3. The Opposite Party had submitted its proof affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Party documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5.

IV.     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 :-

12.    It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased a Three Seater Reclinder Sofa Set from the Opposite Party, on 23.10.2020, bearing Model name “Electra”  for a sum of Rs.40,455/-. It is also not in dispute that the subject Sofa Set was in a good working condition for 8 months from the date of purchase.

13.    The disputed facts of the Complainant are that during September 2021 the leather and fabric upholstery of the subject sofa started peeling off because of the poor quality leather delivered to the Complainant as the Complainant had purchased another Four seater Sofa Set bearing Model name “Diana” which had no issues. The Opposite Party had assured 2 years warranty for the subject sofa and the issue of peeling off occurred during the warranty period. The defect was intimated to the Opposite Party vide email dated 24.09.2021, for which the Opposite Party had replied on the same day assigning a new ticket number and informed that their customer service associate will review the request made and a personal response will be sent within 48 hours. And as it was informed to her that leather fading is not a manufacturing defect inspite of having provided 2 yeas warranty for upholstery leather and fabric, she had sent a detailed mail on 28.09.2021 to the Opposite Party and sought for replacement or repair, as there was no response, the Complainant had approached Consumer helpline of Government of Tamil Nadu and lodged a complaint through mail on 09.10.2021, on receipt of the complaint the said consumer helpline had sought for documents and the email ID of the Opposite Party and the  thereafter had forwarded the reply dated 14.10.2021 sent by the Opposite Party to the said consumer helpline, vide mail dated 18.10.2021. In the reply dated 14.10.2021 sent to the said consumer helpline, the Opposite Party had stated that the issue of peeling off does not cover under the terms and conditions of warranty and the same was an usage issue. On receipt of the forwarded mail of the Opposite Party the Complainant had sent a reply mail dated 18.10.2021 explaining the rejection of her claim was made by using new terms and words as not covered under the warranty and to understand her grievance. In reply to her mail, the said Consumer helpline sent a mail dated 18.10.2021 directing her to approach the concerned Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The Opposite Party had failed to describe about the manufacturing defects, having supplied a defective sofa set to the Complainant.

14.    The contention of the Opposite Party are that on 30.09.2021 they had sent a reply mail to the Complainant after their inspection, that as per the update from their complaints department, they are not able to accommodate her request, as mentioned complaint of peeling off had caused due to post usage of 331 days and it was a usage issue. Further contended that as per clause 15 of the fabric of sofa set terms and conditions, the warranty shall not apply to natural characteristics of leather products, natural wear and tear. Further contended that no documents to prove the manufacturing defects in the subject product, was filed by the Complainant, as there was no manufacturing defect they could not replace the subject product. There was no deficiency of service on their part, hence there is no question of refunding or replacing of the subject product.

15. In view of the above discussions and on perusal of records, it is clear that the Complainant had purchased the subject sofa under Ex.A-1 from the Opposite Party and from page No.3 of Ex.A-1 the Opposite Party had provided 2 years warranty for upholstery leather & fabric and the components covered under the said 2 years warranty includes fabric/leather and particular coverage given to upholstery fabric and leather are, fraying and dye transfers are covered in upholstery fabric and Dye transfers are covered in upholstery leather. It is to be noted that the Complainant had reported about peeling off issue in the subject sofa to the Opposite Party on 24.09.2021 through mail as found in Ex.A-2 and a reply mail was sent by the Opposite Party on the same day which is also found in Ex.A2. It is also to be noted that the Opposite Party by Ex.B-3 reply mail dated 30.09.2021, to the mail dated 28.09.2021, Ex.A-2 sent by the Complainant, it was mentioned that “as per the update from the complaints department we will not be able to accommodate your request as mentioned complaint leather peeling of has caused due to post usage of 331 days ad it is usage issue”.

16.    The Opposite Party had also filed the terms and conditions of customized fabric of sofa set where warranty for sofa set is given for one year from the date of Invoice and that too only against manufacturing defects and the right of determining the manufacturing defects rest with the Opposite Party. Further the warranty shall not apply to natural characteristics of wooden foam & leather products, natural wear and tear improper installation by the customer other than as provided in the manual, improper or inadequate maintenance of the product, wrong handling of the product, pest, termite & fungus infestation modifications made to the product, any misuse or negligent usage, loss or damage due tofire, smoke, water, lighting, sunlight, weather, rusting, corrosion, theft or explosion, rusting, sagging, fading due to non-maintenance, accidental damage or loss or damage caused by a third party, assembling done by non-Home Centre assembling/installation team etc.

17.    The Counsel for Complainant had contended quoting  “Product Liability” and “Unfair Trade Practice” defined under Sections 83 and 2 (47) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for better appreciation the sections are reproduced hereunder:

        “Product liability action: a product liability action may be brought by a Complainant against a product manufacturer or a product service provider or a product seller, as the case may be, for any harm caused to him on account of a defective product”.

 “Unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-

(i)  Making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible                 representation including by menas of electronic record, which-

1. Falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model:
2. Falsely represents that the services are of particular standard quality or grade:

18.    The contention of the Counsel for Complainant that for the defect that arise to a product is covered under warranty or not, the Complainant is entitled for replacement of the product or for refund of price of the product, is not legally sustainable when the Complainant herself had produced the warranty coverage as found in page No.3 of Ex.A-1, though the fabric/leather components are covered under 2 years warranty period, in respect of upholstery leather only dye transfers are covered which is clearly expressed in the terms and conditions provided to the Complainant by the Opposite Party, and the said terms are binding between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. Hence, it is clear that the issue of peeling off reported by the Complainant was inspected by the Opposite Party and found that the same occurred due to wear and tear on usage, the Opposite Party had clearly replied the same to the Complainant on 30.09.2021 through their reply mail, which fact/document has been suppressed by the Complainant on the pretext that the Opposite Party had rejected her claim of replacement or refund imposing new terms and words, as in page No.3 of Ex.A-1 it is clearly mentioned that the issue of leather peeling off is not covered under warranty and the Complainant had failed to prove the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed deficiency of service and / or unfair trade practice. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

POINTS NO 2 & 3

19.    As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Points No.2 and 3 are answered.

       

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 30^th of May 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	23.10.2020	Invoice issued by the Opposite Party with online warranty
Ex.A2	28.09.2021	Email conversation between the Complainant and Opposite Party
Ex.A3		Defective sofa photograph

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1		Copy of the of board resolution dated 19.03.2013 and letter of Authority dated 19.01.2022
Ex.B2	23.10.2020	Copy of the Invoices
Ex.B3	30.09.2021	Copy of the mail
Ex.B4		Photo taken during Technician’s visit
Ex.B5		Photo taken during Technician’s visit

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT