Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/79/2020

Durian Industries Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahil Aggarwal - Opp.Party(s)

Anurag Singh Tagra & Jai Madhu Dogra Adv.

27 Sep 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	79 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	03.06.2020
Date of Decision	:	27.09.2021

 

1. Durian Industries Limited, Shop No.B-17-241, B-17-207 and B-17-207 and B-17-207/1, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana (Punjab) 141001 through its General Manager.
2. Durian Industries Limited, Regd. Address 401, The Summit, Hanuman Road, Western Express Highway, Ville Parle, East Mumbai – 400054 (Maharashtra).

                                      .... Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

Sahil Aggarwal son of Sh. Ashwani Aggarwal resident of House No.1734, Top Floor, Sector – 34, Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Complainant..

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEMY, MEMBER

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Present through Video Conferencing:-      

Sh. Anurag Singh Tagra, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate, Proxy for Sh. Yugansh Siwach, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA,  MEMBER           

                   This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties (appellants herein) against order dated 21.01.2020  passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh) [in short ‘District Commission’] vide which consumer complaint  No.65 of 2019 filed by the  complainant (respondent herein) was allowed in the following relief:-

“11]   In view of the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the OPs are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against the OPs with following directions:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.72,600/- to the complainant being the cost of the bed in question.
2. To pay a compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing avoidable harassment;
3. To pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

          This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12]    However, the OPs shall collect the Bed in question from the residence of the complainant, against receipt, only after making payment of the above awarded amount.

          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.”

2.                Briefly stated the facts are that the back panel of the King Size bed purchased by the complainant on 16.02.2018 from the opposite parties for Rs.78,600/-, broke in the month of November and its front side got separated and further laminate of the bed also broke. Alongwith the bed, the complainant also bought mattress for Rs.12,500/- carrying 5 years warranty. When the said mattress was found to be small in size, the opposite parties took the same back and refunded the price thereof to the complainant. However, after much persuasion, the repairer of the opposite parties failed to repair the bed and left the work incomplete with the assurance to visit again but he did not turn up. Alleging said act and conduct of the opposite parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complaint was filed before the District Commission.

3.                The opposite parties contested the complaint and stated that as per terms and conditions for sale mentioned at the backside of the invoice, the bed was not replaceable/returnable in any circumstances and the warranty was only for repair. It was further stated that out of goodwill gesture, price of mattress was refunded to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant made complaint of back panel of the bed separated from the front side and also laminate broken after using the said bed for eight months. It was further stated on inspecting the bed, it was found that the complainant attempted to reinstall the bed from one place to another as a result whereof, the said damage occurred. The said defect in the bed was not a manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the opposite parties repaired the bed and laminated to the best of their capacities but the complainant was not satisfied and he wanted to return the said bed on false pretext as due to his own wrong handling the said bed broke.  

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their case.

5.                After hearing arguments of the parties and going through the record, the District Commission allowed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record and written arguments carefully.

7.                The appellants/opposite parties has assailed the order of the District Commission on the ground that the damage to the bed and laminates in question occurred as the respondent/complainant attempted to reinstall the same from one place to another by not following the instructions supplied in the user manual of the said bed. It has further been stated that still the appellants repaired the said bed and laminates but the respondent was not satisfied. It has further been stated that the appellants are still ready to repair the said bed but the fastening of liability of perfect repair is totally illegal and injudicious. It has further been stated that the respondent has made a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the agreed terms and conditions by filing false complaint.

8.                On the other hand, the respondent/complainant, in his written arguments, stated that at the time of purchase of the bed, no manual instructions were supplied to him and the appellants did not adduce any proof with regard to supplying of such manual. It was further stated that the bed, in question, is under warranty and the appellant did not repair the bed fully and the officials of the appellant, who were to repair the bed left the bed in between without repairing it as the bed was not in a condition of repair. It was further stated that under the warranty terms, the appellant has to provide free repair services. It was further stated that during the pendency of the complaint, the hydraulics of the bed also stopped working properly and detached from the sides and the joints. It was further stated that the bed was creating problem since the day of its purchase. It was further stated that the District Commission rightly ordered the refund along with compensation and litigation cost.

9.                There is no dispute as regards the taking back of the mattresses being of not proper size and refunding its prices by the opposite parties to the complainant. The only issue involved was as regards the bed sold by the opposite parties to the complainant being defective. Bare perusal of photographs of the said bed placed on record of the District Commission transpires that the bed, in question, was in ugly state and damaged due to its poor workmanship by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have admitted in their reply as also in their written arguments that their person tried to fix and repair the bed and laminates to their capability but the respondent was not satisfied. No doubt, the bed and the laminates were repaired but the opposite parties were required to satisfy the respondent as regards its repair. As per the complainant, the workers of the opposite parties left the repair work in between and did not repair the defects in the bed. In our considered view, had the workers of the opposite parties repaired the bed and the laminates properly and to the entire satisfaction of the respondent, there would have been no occasion for the respondent to file the complaint for redressal of his grievance.  Since, the District Commission has held in its order that the bed, in question, became defective within the first year of its purchase i.e. within the warranty period, therefore, the plea and argument of the appellants that the warranty for repair free of cost was only for one year and further four years warranty was only for repair at the customer cost cannot be accepted. Once, the appellants failed to repair the bed and laminates within the warranty period of first year, to its fully and to the entire satisfaction of the respondent, they have rightly been burdened with the liability to refund the cost thereof along with compensation and litigation cost. It is a fact that when any consumer buys any wooden article like beds, almirahs, dining table, center table etc., he or she believes the quality of wood, its durability, make and workmanship as told by the shopkeeper or the carpenter at the time of its purchase. The consumer is totally a layman in assessing the quality of wood used for making the furniture or its workmanship. The District Commission, in our opinion, rightly drawn an adverse inference that the bed, in question, was beyond repairs and the only remedy was either to replace the same or refund the price thereof.  It also rightly observed in Para 10 of its order that the Company products are being purchased for their quality and durability and huge amount is also being spent on it by the customer in order to avoid any kind of hassle, which one may face while buying a sub-standard material/product. We further endorse the view held by the District Commission that the terms and conditions printed on the back of the invoice were one sided and were part of only standard form of contract, which does not bind the other party,

10.              Thus, we are of the considered view that non-repairing the bed and laminates in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant amounted to deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellants  and then by not refunding its price amounted to unfair trade practice on their part. The District Commission, in our view, rightly ordered for refund of the cost of the bed, in question, along with compensation and litigation costs.

11.              For the reasons recorded above, no interference is called for in the well-reasoned order of the District Commission and therefore, the present appeal filed by the opposite parties, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 

12.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

27.09.2021

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad