BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

ORDER

SRI.H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER

1. This complaint has been filed under section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking relief against the OP to replace the sofa with a new one of the same model, to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the  complainant as compensation towards the negligence, deficiency in service and for mental agony, hypertension and inconvenience and loss caused and to award the cost of the proceedings including  advocate fee, legal charges  and pass such other reliefs as this Hon’ble  Commission deems fit. 

2.  The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant had purchasedHanol Viental Leather Sofa 2S V2 under an invoice bearing no.2021092101 dt.31.01.2021 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. At the time of purchase of said sofa the OP has informed that the said Sofais made out of pure leather and assuredthe complainant aboutthe life of the said leather. Afterfew days, the complainant noticed that leather used in the Sofais not pure leather and said leather got damaged. Hence, the complainant called OP and informed about the same and requested the OP to repair the said sofa and accordingly, OP has sent authorized person, the said person taken photographs of the said sofa andthere after OP did not rectify the defect of the said sofa. Therefore, the complainant called OP several times and demanded to replace the said sofa, but OP went on postponing the same with one or the other protest. Being fed up by the act of the OP, the complainant got issued legal notice on 30.03.2021 calling upon the OP to replace the sofa with new one of same model. The said notice was duly served on the OP, but inspite of the notice OP did not come forward to rectify the defect of the sofa or replace with new one and being aggrieved by the said act of the OP, the complainant left with no other option has filed this complaint.

3. After service of the notice, OP  appeared through counsel and filed version. In the version OP has contended that complaint is not  maintainable either in law or facts. OP being the reputed  institution involved in importing and trading/selling of all kinds of furniture  through out India and OP have maintained high value in carrying on their business and have taken up their business  and maintained high value. The OP admits  that the complainant had booked and purchased the sofa in their outlet. The complainant has paid amount towards said sofa and OP have delivered the  said Sofa to the complainant well within time. The OP contends that  the complainant was informed by the  officials of the OP that the leather of the sofa is not pure and the sofa was damaged and the defect item delivered to the complainant. The OP also contends that the said sofa is under warranty  for the manufacturing defect for one year to retail customers in the terms and conditions as cited in para-8. The OP has sent authorized representative and later it was   noticed that  leather was pure one and there was no manufacturing defect and OP has rendered its true service   and issue was resolved.  OP have not noticed any defect in the sofa and  hence there is no chance of replace of said sofa and also submits that  OP does not supplied defective sofa  and maintaining high standard  and complainant is making false allegations against the OP as said sofa is defective one and the complainant has trying to harass the OP by alleging that sofa is defective one and further denies all other allegations made in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.  The complainant has filed affidavit evidence reiterating the facts of the complaint and got marked Exhibits P1 to P3.  The authorized person of OP filed affidavit evidence and got marked Exhibits R1.

5. Complainant filed written arguments and arguments of OP is taken as nil. Perused the records.

6.   The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Affirmative.

      Point No.2:- Affirmative.

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

8.  Point No.1 & 2: On perusing the pleading of the complainant and version of OP, it is admitted by the OP that the complainant has purchased leather sofa through invoice bearing no.2021092101 dt.31.01.2021 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was admitted by the OP, but when the complainant had used the said sofa  within a few days the leather of the said sofa got damaged. It was noticed by the complainant that leather  which was provided to the said sofa by the OP was not pure leather and as such the sofa got damaged. Further, OP contends that the said sofa was provided to the complainant stating that the said leather is not pure one, which was informed by the officials of the OP in para-9 of the version and also further the OP has send the representative to rectify the defect and the representative  when visited  and inspected the sofa and stated that the leather was not damaged and quality of the leather was pure and there was no manufacturing defect and as such OP has rendered their service and issue was resolved which was stated by the OP  in para-14 of the version. Further, the OP contends at one stage that complainant was informed that the leather of the sofa is not pure one and in another stretch  contends that  the quality of the leather was pure and further contends there is no  manufacturing defect by stating the contradictory statement by blowing  hot and cold which is not believable that there is no manufacturing defect. Further on perusal of the Ex.P1 copies of two photographs and the  leather sofa it can be seen that the leather has been torn and further OP also submits that there is a warranty for manufacturing defect for  one year to the retailed customers in the terms and conditions at point-8. Further, the said sofa was purchased by the complainant on 31.01.2021, within a span of two months the said sofa got damaged and when the complainant contacted the OP to rectify the said sofa, but the OP has not turned to rectify the said sofa and ears of the OP gone deap. In spite of repeated  request to rectify, the complainant being fed up by the act of the OP, the complainant finally issued legal notice to the OP on 30.03.2021 and the said  notice was duly served  and in that regard also OP have not turned up to rectify the same and also there was no proper response from the OP.

9. When the  said sofa is under warranty and the complainant has purchased the said sofa by his hard earned money and  within a fraction of two months the said sofa was damaged due to the leather provided to the sofa was not pure one and same can be seen  from Ex.P1 along with  two photographs. But, inspite of the repeated requests OP has not rectified the same which is under warranty and as such there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Hence,  the OP is directed to rectify the sofa  by replacing the leather of the sofa with pure leather within 30 days from the date of this order. Further, the OP has made the complainant to run from pillar to post to rectify the defect of the sofa and as such the complainant has undergone mental trauma and suffering and as such the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,000/-.  More over the complainant has engaged service of advocate to contest the case on merits. Hence, the complainant is entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. Hence, we answer the point no.1 &2 in the affirmative.

10.  Point no.3:- For the fore going reasons,  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP shall rectify the sofa of the complainant by replacing the leather of the sofa with pure leather within 30 days from the  date of this order.
3. The OP shall Pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards  cost of the litigation to the complainant   within 30 days from the date of this order.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties, and return the spare pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 10^th  day of November, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-PW.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :