West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/576/2014

Rajrupa Sen, W/O Soumya Bhattacharya, D/O Ajoy Sen. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Proprietor, M/S Furniture Junction. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _576   OF ___2014____

 

DATE OF FILING : 28.11.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 20.04.2016

Present                        :       

 

                                        Member(s)    :  Smt.  Sharmi Basu & Subrata Sarker     

 

COMPLAINANT                  :   Rajrupa Sen,w/o Soumya Bhattacharya,d/o Ajoy Sen of 8/23/1, Naskar Para Lane, P.O Dhakuria, Kolkata – 31.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :    1.  The prop. Of M/s Furniture Junction of 53/1A, G.J. Khan Road, Kolkata – 157 and City Centre(New Town) Shop #ccnt A0106 & A 202,Kol- 157

                                                   2.     The Sales Manager, M/s Furniture Junction, of 53/1A, G.J. Khan Road, Kolkata – 157 and City Centre(New Town) Shop #ccnt A0106 & A 202,Kol- 157

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

             In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that she has purchased one wooden wardrobe (Model –MA 9353-three door wardrobe) from the O.Ps on 23.1.2014 against consideration of Rs.12000/- and additional 2 pcs shelves were installed /fixed up inside the wardrobe at an additional cost of Rs.2000/-. But the complainant experienced that the product and after sales service are extremely poor and she has to suffer financial loss  due to damage of personal items that were stored in the defective three door wardrobe. Immediate after purchasing the aforesaid goods, a hole was noticed in the wardrobe which was subsequently mended by patchwork and also drawer fitting was defective which was subsequently repaired , moreover locks and racks are defective  and lastly after three months the body of the wardrobe got repeatedly affected with fungus even after proper handling of the product for which dress material  and costly Benarasi Saree were damaged and she has to incur loss of Rs.30,000/-. After purchasing the product she has to suffer tremendous financial loss and harassment for which this case has been filed praying for compensation of Rs.50,000/- .

            The O.Ps contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that complainant without any objection whatsoever had taken delivery of the products and minor problems while fitting of the wardrobe were duly attended to and rectified by the technician of the O.Ps at site to the satisfaction of the complainant. The case of the O.Ps is that one the complainant changes the nature and character of the product supplied, the O.Ps are not liable or responsible for the warranty and it is noted in the delivery challan that for all imported products ,liabilities are with the manufacturer and not with the  O.Ps and it has been clearly mentioned that the product is not water resistant and if any damage is caused by wiping the products by water and seepage due to the same, the O.Ps are not liable. The O.P strongly denies that there was presence of a hole which was subsequently mended by patchwork. The positive case of the O.Ps is that the fungus as alleged by the complainant and overall loss of Rs.30,000/- has not been substantiated by any material proof . O.Ps pray for dismissal of the case.

Points for Decision

1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant case or not.
2. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not.
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
4. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            Regarding the 1^st Point, before going into the merits of the case it is needed to be mentioned here that the address of the O.Ps are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. But it is also fact that the wardrobe was delivered at the residence of the complainant which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and not only that, the men and agents of the O.Ps have repaired the goods in question twice at the residence of the complainant. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as per Section 11(2) ( c ) of the C.P Act, which is reproduced below;

“  A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction  - the cause of action wholly or in part arises”.

In this contest we are referring the renowned Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in four set of Revision petitions filed by M/s Tata Coffee Ltd. The four respondents herein had filed separate complaints before the District Consumer Forum Bellary, seeking refund and compensation against the revision petitioners. All four complaints were allowed by the District Forum and appeals against them have been dismissed by the State Commission by a common order.

In brief, as per the Hon’ble NCDRC ,all four complainants are brothers and their complaints have arisen from a single transaction  of purchase of block board from the respondent. All four used the materials in their respective houses for making of furniture, box type wardrobe, TV cabinet, dressing tables and other furniture items. The block board after some time were found to be affected by borer infestation. They took up the matter with the vendor/O.P but did not get appropriate response. Hence, four different consumer complaints were filed before the District Forum Bellary, with prayer for refund of cost and award of compensation” [ Vide R.P no.2475 to 2478 of 2010, decided on 07-03-2014 ;(2014(2)CLT93] .

In the abovementioned landmark decision Hon’ble NCDRC has been pleased to observe keeping in mind the essence of Section 11( c ) of the C.P Act, 1986 that “ Complainants purchased block boards for making furniture items – After sometime block boards were found to be affected by borer infestation  - complaint filed at Bellary-O.P objected that there was a stipulation in purchase bill stating all disputes are subject to Bangalore jurisdiction. In this regard Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that  Goods were delivered in Bellary.– Hence jurisdiction lay with the District Forum Bellary. Jurisdiction would lie with the District Forum where the cause of action has arisen, whether wholly or in part. In instant case, the cause of action arose in Bellary, where the goods were physically received and utilized. Therefore, District Forum Bellary has rightly exercised jurisdiction over the consumer complaint because as per 11( c ) of the C.P Act considering the “cause of action”, District Forum Bellary has territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, we also referred a landmark decision of Hon’ble State Commission ,Chattisgarh ,where in a similar case Hon’ble State Commission has been pleased to hold that if cause of action as a whole or in part arose at the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, that Forum has ample power to adjudicate that case as per sub section 2(c ) of section 11 of the C.P Act, 1986 ( vide FA/14/337; S.C.D.R.C , Chattisgarh, decided on 18.11.2014).  

Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that this Forum has very much territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant case. In support of that, we are also referring the decision of Hon’ble State Commission in a similar case ( Dynovox Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.J.S Rampuria Join College , Bikaneeer). In this case the Principal B.J.S Rampuria Jain College, Bikaneer filed a complaint to the District Forum, Bikaneer, regarding a dispute of photocopier which was purchased from Dynovox Electronics Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi . The Photocopier machine has caused problems in functioning and the same was repaired by the O.Ps /appellants at the aforesaid college of the respondents which is situated at Bikaneer. In this regard, Hon’ble State Commission, Rajasthan, has been pleased to observe that the District Forum of Bikaneer has territorial jurisdiction under section 11(2)© of the C.P Act, 1986 since the goods in question was supplied at the college and the same was supplied and repaired by the O.Ps at the college of the complainant.

 Therefore, we hold that the this Forum has very much territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant case.

Regarding the 2^nd point it appears that complainant purchased the wardrobe from the O.Ps after paying the full consideration money . Therefore, complainant is a consumer under the definition of “Consumer” as prescribed under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P Act, 1986.

After scrutinizing vividly the complaint, written version and all other documents brought before this Forum by both the parties and hearing argument, it is crystal clear that immediately after purchasing the wardrobe it was come to the knowledge of the complainant that there was a hole in that wardrobe and the same was mended by an authorized technician of the O.Ps after lodging complaint by the complainant. It is also fact, though the O.Ps had denied the material allegations but virtually admitted about the aforesaid hole in the wardrobe, moreover O.Ps have failed to establish that the wardrobe was defect free after repairing that hole as O.ps could not tender any cogent evidence to establish the same .

            On the contrary, from day to day personal experience it is quite easy to understand that due to that hole in question the wardrobe is not any more air tight which is causing fungus inside the wardrobe.

            Therefore, in the light of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that firstly the goods in question is suffering from ‘manufacturing defect’ and in this regard keeping mind the observation of Honourable National Commission that if any goods is suffering from any defect within six months from the date of purchasing the same, then O.P is liable to replace that goods or to refund the cost of the goods to the complainant, it is strongly opined by this Forum that O.P is liable to replace that wardrobe or to refund the cost of the goods to the complainant.. It is also beyond doubt that due to that defective goods complainant has not only to suffer financial loss but has to face tremendous mental agony and harassment and she is eligible to be aptly compensated by the O.Ps.

            Regarding the point for discussion i.e. whether the complaint case is adjudicable by this Forum ,it is observed that address of both the O.Ps are under the territorial jurisdiction of the North 24-Pargnas and obviously not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as per section 11 (1)(d)(ii) of the C.P Act, 1986.

            Thus all the points are discussed and all are in favour of the complainant.

            Therefore, complaint case succeeds .

 

 

 

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

            That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.

             The O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the cost of the goods in question amounting to Rs.12000/- and also to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from this date, failing which, interest will carry @10% p.a on all the amounts from the date of expiry of 30 days till realization.

Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the complainant free of cost and a copy of this judgment be sent to the O.Ps through speed post as per rule.

 

Member                                                                                                                       Member                                                          

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

           

Ordered

            That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.

            The O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the cost of the goods in question amounting to Rs.12000/- and also to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from this date, failing which, interest will carry @10% p.a on all the amounts from the date of expiry of 30 days till realization.

Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the complainant free of cost and a copy of this judgment be sent to the O.Ps through speed post as per rule.

 

 

Member                                                                                                                       Member