Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/53/2021

A.Venkata Krishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Home Center - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

04 May 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:08.01.2021

  Date of Reservation     :17.04.2023

  Date of Order              :04.05.2023

          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.53/2021

 THURSDAY,THE 4^th DAY OF MAY 2023

A.Venkata Krishnan,

3A, Ramniyam Mahadevan Apartments,

80^th Street, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                                                         .. Complainant.

 

-Vs-

The Manager,

Home Center,

77^th Town Center,

Building No.3, Westwing,

Off. Old Airport Road, Yemalur (PO),

Bangalore – 560037.                                                    .. Opposite Party.

* * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant    : Party in person

 

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

                                                       R. Surendran

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the Complainant in person 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 direct the Opposite Party to replace the defective furniture or refund the amount Rs.40912/- paid by the Complainant along with the cost of the old furniture for Rs.13,500/- taken by them plus a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the stress and mental agony caused to the Complainant.

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

1.     The Complainant had booked a furniture through online with the Opposite party on 26 August 2020 one three seater and two single seater sofa and returned his old furniture and paid a sum Rs.21,450/- & Rs.19,462/- and  received invoice No.2210010676& No.2210010675 both dated 27.08.2020, the said items were delivered on 28.08.2020. On the next day another person came, unpacked and assembled the furniture. As he had noticed there was a colour difference in the sofas ordered and delivered, the said person convinced them it was due to the light in the room, whereas he had ordered dark brown sofa and in the invoice it was mentioned brown and brown mix, but delivered more like ash-grey in colour. After a month of usage he had noticed that the fabric on the top was coming off and rolling like a woollen ball as it happens in the old woollen materials and also the cushion started sagging, felt uncomfortable to sit in the sofa as it was causing itching and no cushioning effect. He made complaint with customer care of the company through phone on 06.10.2020, but received no complaint number but it was assured that a person would visit and check, would take photos and videos and send it to the company and thereafter they would analyse the photo and would decide next action. As such a person visited on 09.10.2020 and took videos, photos and informed them that he would send it to higher ups once he reaches his office. Thereafter he had not received any feedback hence called up the customer care and asked them about the status, to their shock it was told that no complaints were pending with the registered mobile number and asked for the complaint number which was not received by them. Hence it was told to book a new complaint on 10.10.2020 and received two separate numbers for both the items vide complaint No.48854 and 48855 and informed that their executive would talk.For around a week as there was no response, so they called up the customer care and enquired with them, the customer care executive informed it was still under process. Due to their continuous pressure to sort out the issue the company store executive from Bangalore spoke to them and it was informed by them about the bad quality of fabric and cushion and also informed that they were not able to use the sofa because of the said problem, the customer executive did not accepted their fault and denied to repair or to replace. Hence they again contacted the customer care who informed them to lodge a new complaint again, as the previous complaint was closed. Hence a complaint was lodged again and tried to talk to the executives but they put their calls on hold and never returned or disconnected without giving any information to the point. In the month of October and November 2020 they had made so many calls and sent mails informing their difficulty and inability to use the furniture, but the Opposite Party never responded. This has caused tremendous mental agony and waste of their time, after spending much money believing that a reputed company would not cheat us, they felt mentally stressed which caused loss of peace. On 28.10.2020 they visited the company show room at Royapettah Chennai to check whether the colour and quality supplied to them were same as the one available in the showroom.  To their surprise the colour and the quality of the items were different. Hence they spoke to store in-charge of the shop regarding this issue, he said he wont be able to do anything as the item was purchased online. Even from there also they had made a call to customer care and told them about the major difference they noticed regarding the quality but they refused to listen to them and disconnected their calls. They have been trying to talk and inform with the customer care executives about the issues that they have been facing but in vain. In the meantime with minimum usage of the furniture they noticed that the furniture seat cushions have become uneven. On one side it was high and other half it was low. Front side of the cushion has become more soft than the rear one. Hence again he took up the issue with the customer care on 29.12.2020. The complaint number given to them was 53779,53780 and their problem was informed to the customer care, again a representative visited and took videos and photos of the furniture. They spoke to the executive and got information that the issue was taken up with the concerned team and would intimate as soon as they get a reply. On 6^th January when no calls were received they contacted the customer care, they informed their team has not accepted the fault and informed us it was due to forced use of the item. Hence it would clear that they were in no mood to accept and in total denial mode right from day one. As they are grown up people at home and the item is under warranty for 12 months. Inspite of explaining all these things the Opposite Party are not willing to sort out the issue. It has been struggle for the entire family speaking with the Opposite Party after paying so much amount for the product. Hence the complaint.

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

 

2.        The Opposite Party submitted that the furniture which was delivered bears the same colour &quality ordered by the Complainant as was also mentioned in the Invoice. Hence there is no question of colour difference in ordered & delivered item. The Complaint being filed on frivolous grounds deserves dismissal.The said product was in a perfect condition as it was meant to be. The product has a soft filing in the backrest and it is provided to increase the comfort in the sofa, since it has a soft filling, the product would get compressed while using, however it would regain its shape in few minutes. It was advised to the Complainant to fluff the sofa frequently so the foam of poly fill would regain its shape as was clearly mentioned in the user manual under Do’s and Don’t’s, “Fluff your sofa frequently with your hands to help the foam and polyfill inside to regain its composure”. Further as per warranty Terms under Clause 6, “Products which are made of natural materials like wood, marble, leather, can come with different shades, colour and finish. The nature of the product and material is not considered as manufacturing defect. These are the basic features of the material used in making the product”. Further as per Terms & Conditions – Customized Fabric of sofa Set (My sofa)under clause 15, “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, any movement whatsoever from the initial location of installation or delivery, breakage of glass or the product, any misuse or negligent usage, loss or damage due to fire, 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, assembly done by non- Home Centre assembling / installation team etc”. Hence there is no defect in the said product and the present Complaint deserves dismissal. They for the first time got a call from the Complainant only on 9^th October 2020 and his complaint was catered to by providing 2 separate Complaint Numbers bearing No.48854 and 48855 and the Technician was also appointed to visit to the Complainant’s home and to check the colour & quality of the said product, the Technician did not find any issue with the colour and quality of the said product. Hence, the Complainant was duly intimated that the said product was good in quality and there was also no colour difference in Ordered and delivered items and therefore his Complaint got closed. The Complainant had ordered the said product through online portal and was supplied with the same product. Hence there is no question of comparing it with another product of the Opposite Party located at the showroom at Royapettah Chennai. Complainant again got registered a Complaint with their Customer Care, the Representative again visited the Complainant’s premises and took photos of the said product even at which time the Technician do not find any issue with the colour and quality of the said product. Hence, the Complainant was duly intimated and Complaint got closed. Further there is no doubt that the said product is under warranty for 12 Months from the date of purchase and they undertakes to repair or exchange the product in the event that the product does not function as originally described or intended which is not applicable in the present Complaint as the said product was good in quality and there was also no colour difference in Ordered and delivered items. There exist no disputes with regard to the internal damages or defect in Sofa-set sold by them. It would be a clear and apparent suppression of facts by the Complainant himself who gave no heed to the user manual and incorporated terms  & condition therein, and the alleged damages were nothing but a consequences of negligence and bad handling at the end of Complainant. Hence, it would not be wrong in saying that on account of such suppression and misrepresentation by the Complainant. The relief(s) sought in the present Complaint is not legally maintainable due to lack of any manufacturing defect in sofa set, whereas the deterioration, if any, at outer surface are resulted due to mishandling by the Complainant. It is furthermore set out that the Complainant has not even set out any case for deficiency in services which may require any adjudication by this Hon’ble Commission. Hence prayed to dismiss with exemplary costs.

III.    The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments, in support of his claim in the complaint has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-11. The Opposite Party had submitted its proof affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Party Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-3 were marked.

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 :-

3.     It is an undisputed fact that on 26.08.2020 the Complainant had booked a furniture one three seater and two single seater sofa through online with the Opposite party and paid a sum Rs.21,450/- & Rs.19,462/- vide Invoice Nos.2210010676 & No.2210010675 both dated 27.08.2020. It is also not in dispute that the said items were delivered to the Complainant on 28.08.2020.

4.     The disputed facts of the Complainant are that the Colour of the subject sofa ordered and delivered was found to be different, as he had ordered Dark Brown colour whereas the colour delivered was like Ash-Grey, which is against the Colour ordered by him and further after a month of usage he had noticed that the fabric on the top was coming off and rolling like a woollen ball and also the cushion started sagging, which felt uncomfortable to sit in the sofa as it was causing itching and no cushioning effect.

5.     When the said issues were taken up to the Opposite Party for sorting the same from 06.10.2020 to 29.12.2020, having sent their technician twice and took photos and videos, the said issues were not sorted out and only on 06.01.2021 it was informed by the Opposite Party that their team has not accepted the fault and informed them it was due to forced use of the item. Hence the Opposite Party right from the day one they were in total denial mode and they were in no mood to accept their fault. The delivered item is under warranty for 12 months. Their issues were not sorted out by the Opposite Party which caused tremendous mental stress and agony after having paid a huge amount and purchased the sofas from the Opposite Party believing their reputation.

6.     The contentions of the Opposite Party are that there was no difference in colour ordered and delivered. There exist no disputes with regard to the internal damages or defect in Sofa-set sold by them. The Complainant himself who gave no heed to the user manual and incorporated terms & condition therein, with suppression of facts had filed this complaint. The damages alleged were nothing but a consequences of negligence and bad handling at the end of Complainant. The relief/s sought by the Complainant was/were not legally maintainable due to lack of any manufacturing defect in sofa set, whereas the deterioration, if any, at outer surface are resulted due to mishandling by the Complainant. The Complainant has not even set out any case for deficiency in service on their part.

7.     On discussions made above and on perusal of records, it is clear from Exs.A-1 and A-2, the Complainant had ordered one three seater and two single seater sofa through online with the Opposite party vide Order No.9613906984 on 27.08.2020 and two separate Invoices bearing Nos.2210010675& No.2210010676 both dated 27.08.2020, were raised in the name of the Complainant by the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.21,450/- and for a sum of Rs.19,462/-. It is also clear that the Complainant had reported about the condition of the fabric in the top was coming off and rolling like a woollen ball and the Cushion started sagging and became uncomfortable to sit in the subject sofas, as the same caused itching and no cushion effect on 06.10.2020 which was immediately within two months from the date of purchase.  The Complainant had submitted that technician of the Opposite Party had visited his place on 09.10.2020 and took photos, videos and had informed to send the status after reaching out their higher officials, which was admitted by the Opposite party, as only on 09.10.2020 they have received first call from the Complainant about the said issues and they had assigned complaint numbers and sent their technician, who did not find any issue in the colour and quality of the subject sofas and the same was intimated to the Complainant. From Exs.A-3, A-4, Mail dated 29.10.2020 and 30.10.2020, the Complainant had taken up the issue of quality of the subject sofas and had questioned about the closure of the complaints given by him and no proper response to his phone calls and from Ex.A-5 Reply Mail dated 02.11.2020 sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, wherein it has been admitted that the Complaints were raised by the Complainant with regard to the quality of the subject sofas and had informed that the issue raised was not sort of any manufacturing defect and the said decision was taken based on the inspection report, and further there was no sagging issue as the compression is a natural tendency of the material which used to bounce back to its given shape. From Ex.A-6 Mail dated 10.11.2020 the Complainant again had taken up the issue of quality of the subject sofas which was under warranty period and the Opposite Party by reply mail dated 10.11.2020 had assured to review the request of the Complainant and to send personal response within 48 hours, as found in Ex.A-7 and thereafter by reply mail dated 12.11.2020, Ex.A-8 the Opposite Party had reiterated with same facts as contained in Ex.A-5. As the reply sent by the Opposite Party was not satisfactory the Complainant had sent a rejoinder mail dated 12.11.2020 as found in Ex.A-9, for which a similar reply as contained in Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-8 has been sent by the Opposite Party, as found in Ex.A-10.

8.     The reasoning given in the replies sent by the Opposite party that based on the inspection report that they do not find any manufacturing defect, because of the nature of tendency of the material which used to bounce back to its original/given shape, further the Complainant had improperly used the Sofas without following the user manual and the warranty does not cover for sagging due to non-maintenance, are not acceptable, as the issues in the subject sofas occurred within 2 months from the date of purchase, (date of purchase was 27.08.2020 as found in Exs.A-1 and A-2, admitted date of delivery of subject sofas was on 28.08.2020 and admitted date of complaint made by the Complainant was on 09.10.2020), if at all the Complainant would not have followed the Do’s and Dont’s it is bounded duty for the Opposite Party atleast to explain the same when the complaints with regard to the quality of the subject sofas were raised by the Complaint, and also when the Opposite party claims that it is their discretion to repair or replace, had failed to produce the inspection report of their technician who had inspected the subject sofas except the photos and instead informing the Complainant who had faced issue of uncomfortableness in sitting in the subject sofas even for few minutes, that due to tendency of the material it occurred, at the time of inspection, would clearly show that the Opposite Party after the sale is over they are not worried about the difficulties faced by the Complainant and to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the Complainant, and it would also be clear that only in order to avoid their obligations as per the terms and conditions of the Warranty, found fault on the Complainant to escape from any sort of liability. Hence it is clear that the Opposite party had acted lethargically and negligently in resolving the issue of quality of the subject sofas of the Complainant which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party and thereby had caused mental agony to the Complainant. With regard to the Colour of the subject sofas the Complainant had not produced any material evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite party had committed deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

POINTS NO 2 & 3

9.     As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party is liable replace the sofa set (one three seater and two single seater) and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  towards deficiency of service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses, to the Complainant, failing replacement of sofa set to refund a sum of Rs.54,412/-, being the cost price of Rs.40,912/- and Rs.13,500/- valued for old sofa exchanged, together with interest @9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realization.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is   directed to replace the sofa set (one three seater and two single seater) and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards litigation expenses, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order,  failing which the Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.54,412/-, being the cost price of Rs.40,912/- paid by the Complainant towards purchase of sofaset (one three seater and two single seater) and Rs.13,500/- valued by the Opposite Party towards old sofa exchanged, and to take back the said sofa set delivered by the Opposite Party together with interest @9% p.a from the date of  receipt of this order till the date of realization.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 4^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	27.08.2020	Copy of Tax INVBOICE for two single seater sofas
Ex.A2	27.08.2020	Tax invoice for one three seater sofa
Ex.A3	29.10.2020	Mail sent to Home Center Help
Ex.A4	30.10.2020	Mail sent to Home Center Help
Ex.A5	02.11.2020	Reply received from Home Center Help
Ex.A6	10.11.2020	Mail sent to Home Center Help
Ex.A7	10.11.2020	Mail received from Home Center Help
Ex.A8	12.11.2020	Reply received from Home Center
Ex.A9		Reply from Home CEnter
Ex.A10	12.11.2020	Mail to Home Center and Reply from them
Ex.A11	13.11.2020	Mail from Home Center

 

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

Ex.B1		Copy of Board of Resolution dated 19.03.2013 passed by the Opposite Party along with Authorization Letter dated 03.03.2021 in favour of Authorized Representative
Ex.B2		Copy of Invoice bearing No.2210010675 dated 27.08.2020 and user manual incorporated with terms and condition /warranty
Ex.B3		Copy of Email exchanges and product images

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT