State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Krishna Handloom vs Smt. Meenu on 29 April, 2024
First Appeal No. Krishna Handloom 29.04.2024
03 of 2022 Versus
Smt. Meenu Mittal
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission: 15.02.2022
Date of Final Hearing: 22.04.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 03 / 2022
Krishna Handloom
Near Dev Sanskriti Vishwavidyalaya Gate No. 2
Opposite PNB ATM, Haripur Kalan
Haridwar, District Haridwar - 249410
through its Proprietor Ms. Anita Gupta
(Through: Sh. Shardul Negi, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meenu Mittal W/o Sh. Arvind Kumar Mittal
R/o 75, Ganga Vihar, Bhupatwala
Near Periwal Hotel, Haridwar
District Haridwar
(Through: None)
...... Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.09.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 48 of 2021, styled as Smt. Meenu Mittal Vs. Krishna Handloom, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed, directing the appellant / opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the respondent / complainant along with simple interest @6% p.a. from 08.02.2021, i.e., the date of 1 First Appeal No. Krishna Handloom 29.04.2024 03 of 2022 Versus Smt. Meenu Mittal filing of the consumer complaint till realization and Rs. 50,000/-
towards compensation and costs.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that on 20.05.2020, the respondent / complainant had purchased one set of mattresses from the appellant / opposite party for sum of Rs. 7,000/- along with two covers worth Rs. 250/- and paid a total amount of Rs. 7,250/-. A guarantee card was given to the complainant, according to which, the mattresses had guarantee of 60 months'. However, the subject mattresses became defective. When the complainant contacted the manufacturing company, he was informed Nankani Traders, Ranipur More, Haridwar to contact the manufacturing company. Upon receipt of instructions from the manufacturing company, Nankani Traders contacted the complainant and asked for copy of cash memo, guarantee card as well as photographs of mattresses on WhatsApp, which were duly supplied by the complainant. The complainant was informed that the mattresses sold to him by the appellant are not of Marble company. Inspite of several oral and written requests by the complainant, neither the defective mattresses were replaced, nor price thereof was refunded to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Commission.
3. The appellant / opposite party neither appeared before the District Commission, nor submitted the written statement, therefore, vide order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the District Commission, their opportunity of filing the written statement was closed and by subsequent order dated 09.08.2021, their opportunity of filing the evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for arguments.
2 First Appeal No. Krishna Handloom 29.04.2024
03 of 2022 Versus
Smt. Meenu Mittal
4. Learned District Commission, after hearing the respondent / complainant and after considering the material available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order on dated 14.09.2021, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms.
5. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the present appeal has been submitted on behalf of Krishna Handloom as an appellant, who was the opposite party before the District Commission, alleging that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is against law, facts and mandate of law and the District Commission has summarily allowed the consumer complaint. It was further averred in the memo of appeal that the District Commission has failed to consider the fact that the complainant has neither submitted any cogent and reliable evidence, nor made Nankani Traders, Ranipur More, Haridwar as well as the manufacturing company of the subject mattresses as party to the consumer complaint. In the consumer complaint, the complainant has nowhere alleged as to what was the defect in the mattresses purchased by him. Learned District Commission has also not considered the fact that the complainant visited the shop of the appellant after a period of about eight months' from the date of purchase of the mattresses and new mattresses were provided to him in place of the old mattresses and the complainant extended "Thanks" on his mobile. Learned District Commission has also not considered the fact that the complainant had never informed about the defect in the mattresses to the manufacturing company and the consumer complaint has been filed on imaginary grounds / basis.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent / complainant inspite 3 First Appeal No. Krishna Handloom 29.04.2024 03 of 2022 Versus Smt. Meenu Mittal of sufficient service, hence vide order dated 01.02.2024, it was directed that the appeal shall be heard ex-parte against respondent.
7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant did not appear before the District Commission so as to submit the written statement against the consumer complaint and the consumer complaint was proceeded ex-parte against the appellant and decided as such.
8. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant has not submitted any evidence on record to show that the appellant has replaced the defective mattresses with new one. In the appeal, the appellant has also not mentioned the exact date, on which it has allegedly replaced the subject mattresses with one. However, the contention made on behalf of the appellant has clearly transpired that there was certainly some defect in the mattresses purchased by the complainant from the appellant on 20.05.2020, on account of which, as per the version of the appellant, the same were replaced by new mattresses, but there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the appellant has replaced the defective mattresses with new one.
9. Thus, it is clearly proved that the mattresses purchased by the complainant from the appellant on 02.05.2020, turned out to be defective, hence by selling defective mattresses after receiving price thereof, the appellant has certainly committed deficiency in service and the District Commission was justified in directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant together with simple interest @6% p.a. However, we are of the view that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the District Commission towards compensation and costs is certainly on the higher side and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the amount of actual loss suffered by the complainant, i.e., 4 First Appeal No. Krishna Handloom 29.04.2024 03 of 2022 Versus Smt. Meenu Mittal Rs. 7,000/-, in our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. This way, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly, thereby modifying the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission in the above terms.
10. Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the District Commission is modified and the appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the respondent / complainant together with simple interest @6% p.a. from 08.02.2021, i.e., the date of filing of the consumer complaint till actual realization and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. No order as to costs of the appeal.
11. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 29.04.2024 5