Delhi

East Delhi

CC/265/2017

RAMESHWER PANWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

A- ONE FURNITURE - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.265/2017

 

 

	RAMESHWAR PAWAR H.NO. 06, F.F., VINOBA PURI, LAJPAT NAGAR-2ND, NEW DELHI – 110024	….Complainant
Versus
	A ONE FURNITURE SHOP NO. 23, MAHILA COLONY, FURNITURE MARKET, MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI - 110031	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution: 18.07.2017

Judgment Reserved on: 29.08.2022

Judgment Passed on: 17.09.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order I shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. defects in goods sold by OP. 
2. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant in the complaint are that the Complainant purchased a Corner Sofa Set for Rs.19,687/-on 14.08.2017 from OP. 
3. It is submitted that he also paid Rs.1200/- towards the cost of transport.  He was assured by OP shopkeeper that the product was of ‘A’ grade, 8” foam would be used in the seat area, 3” foam would be used as back rest, and  the exposed wood would be covered with 1-5”-2” foam.  He was assured that hygienic cotton would be used and seven years warranty was also given on the sofa set. 
4. The corner sofa set that was delivered to complainant had stains, upholstery was torn and cotton was coming out from various places.  Even the nails in the sofa set were not properly fixed. 
5. The Complainant immediately complained to the shopkeeper but to no avail.  Thereafter, he visited the shop again and again requesting OP to repair the sofa set. One month later, a person was sent to inspect and repair the sofa set.  The person told the Complainant that the said product is made for Yamuna Paar locality and it has only 3” inches foam.  He was ready to put little pieces of foam on places where the wood was exposed.  
6. The complainant called the manager to update him. Then, manager assured the Complainant that he would exchange the sofa set in three days. The complainant waited and followed up with the manager but he received no response. The Complainant also called the Consumer Complaint Helpline and sent notice to OP, but to no avail, and then he has filed the present complaint, and prays for appropriate compensation.
7. OP has not filed its formal reply, but has placed a letter on record thereby stating that the bill submitted by the Complainant does not belong to OP’s shop.  He further stated that they are quick to redress the complaint of all customers.  It is stated that as per bill book, OP used to take 14% CGST and 14% SGST which is not there in the disputed bill. 
8. The Complainant has also denied the averments of OP in his Rejoinder. The Complainant has filed his evidence, and has supported his contentions by way of affidavit.  Complainant has filed Original Retail Invoice, Notice to OP and copy of postal receipts.
9. OP has not filed any affidavit in support of his contentions, rather it stopped appearing and accordingly was proceeded Ex-parte on 05.04.2022.
10. The Commission has gone through the pleadings and examined the documents on record. The cash memo / retail invoice dated 14.08.2017 clearly show that a corner sofa set has been purchased for Rs.19,687.50/- by the Complainant from OP. The invoice also shows seven years warranty on all products. OP has denied this retail invoice in its reply.  However, no affidavit has been filed by OP in support of these averments. The onus to disprove this bill was on OP which has not been discharged by him. The pleadings how so ever strong that may be, cannot take place of evidence or proof. Such pleadings are to be proved by filing affidavit of evidence. Thus, all averments in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted and the evidence led by complainant stands unrebutted, and proved.
11. Hence, it stands proved that OP has sold a defective Sofa Seat to Complainant, and that amount to deficiency in service by the OP.
12. The Complaint of the complainant is accordingly allowed and OP is ordered to followed:

1. Rs. 19,687/- along with 9% interest p.a. from date of purchase till the date of payment.
2. To pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for mental stress and harassment, and  with litigation expenses. The Op would remove the sofa from the home of complainant at his on cost on the ‘as is where is’ basis. 

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 17.09.2022

(Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President