DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.13/13
Shri Harpreet Singh
S/o Late Shri Gurbachan Singh
R/o C-46, Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024
….. Complainant
Versus
Akarshika International
Furniture Showroom
Through Proprietor Ms. Tejinder Bindra
E-135/136, Amar Colony,
Lajpat Nagar-IV,
New Delhi-110024 .…. Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 09.01.2013 Date of Order : 01.11.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Naina Bakshi, Member
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant was looking for custom-made furniture and saw the advertisement of the OP. The complainant contacted the OP, OP assured the complainant that they will manufacture the ordered furniture items as per strict specifications, highest standards and no deviations/ compromises on quality control. The OP demanded Rs.50,000/- as an advance payment, complainant paid the same. The advance was collected by an employee of the OP from his residence. When the complainant demanded a receipt of the same, the employee of the OP stated that they cannot issue any receipt and he will get the same after sometime. Later on the complainant received a estimate receipt dated 14.06.2012, wherein OP gave a discount of Rs.3,050/- apart from mentioning the said advance amount of Rs.50,000/- thereby bringing the net payable balance amount to Rs.1,52,250/-. The OP promised the good to be delivered on or before 30.06.2012, but after repeated reminder and many visit to the OP office, the OP has not delivered the goods. It is submitted that, when the complainant visited to inspect the ordered goods, the same were found not to be as per the specifications / standards promised by the OP at the time of placing the order. Infact to overcome its shortcomings, the OP offered a further discount of Rs.10,000/- which complainant refused, as there was huge difference between the quality promised and goods readied by the OP. The goods were not only substandard, but also financially unsustainable to the rates claimed and charged for by the OP. The OP completely and deliberately misleaded the complainant for delivering high standard goods and claim with regard to its being India’s leading manufacturer of custom-made furniture. Hence, the OP has not only engaged itself in unfair trade practice but deficiency in service. The OP sent a legal notice dated 05.10.2012 based on alleged, incorrect, false and baseless allegation wherein it is mentioned that the total value of the furniture was Rs.2,03,700/- plus 12.5% VAT. In the legal notice, OP has accepted to received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant but in order to not to return the said amount, OP sent a legal notice. It is submitted that, when the complainant protested the conduct of the OP, the OP promised to re-do the entire order as per specification of the complainant but instead of re-doing the same, OP very cleverly kept on lingering the matter one pretext or the other from June, 2012 till 05.10.2012. The complainant sent a reply to the legal notice and demanded to return of Rs.50,000/- since OP has failed to deliver the ordered goods as per specifications within the promised time period i.e. on or before 30.06.2012. Hence pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing following directions to the OP:-
- Award a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum for deficiency in service and indulging unfair trade practice in favour of the complainant against the OP;
- Award a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain and trauma as damages in favour of the complainant against the OP;
- Award the cost of litigation expenses in favour of the complainant against the OP.
OP has inter-alia in its written statement stated that the goods were ready on time on 26th June, 2012, as per samples shown and changes required. The complainant after getting goods made specifically as per his peculiar taste and seeing that they were ready on time, asked the OP to refund the advance payment saying that there had been a change in situation and the complainant did not require the furniture anymore. The OP requested the complainant to pay the balance money and take the furniture. The furniture was stored and disposed only after the Hon’ble Forum permission received on 19.07.2013. The complainant never wanted the furniture and only wanted the advance payment back for which he made various people call and pressurize the OP. It is submitted that the goods were ready for delivery in time of 26.06.2012, the OP contacted the complainant to take delivery several times but the complainant visited the showroom in the month of August, 2012. On that day the complainant told the OP that his situation had changed and now he did not require the furniture. The OP explained the complainant that the furniture was made of a peculiar colour and liking, which did not sell in a regular market and thus, if the complainant did not buy the made to order items the OP would suffer huge losses. It is admitted that the amount of Rs.2,03,700/- was a mistake, the correct amount was Rs.2,02,250/- as per the receipt. It is submitted that the complainant being threatened and pressurized by unknown person. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply of OP and reiterated the same.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Shri H.S. Bindra S/o Shri Harvinder Bindra has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the complainant ordered the furniture to the OP and paid Rs.50,000/- as an advance payment to the OP. The complainant filed the estimate receipt dated 14.06.2012 as annexure- A. The complainant filed an advertisement by the OP as annexure-A(1). The OP vide letter dated 05.10.2012 issued a legal notice to the complainant as annexure-B. The complainant vide letter dated 24.11.2012 replied the legal notice of the OP as annexure-C.
It is not dispute that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as an advance for the furniture, as the furniture was not made according to the specification given by the complainant. The complainant refused to accept the same and requested the OP to refund an amount of Rs.50,000/-.
As per order dated 19.07.2013, the complainant has stated that “I am not ready to take the furniture as per the said furniture is not of my use. Moreover as per this notice, they had already intimated they are selling the said and they may be at liberty to sell the same.”
As per order dated 04.09.2013, the OP was ready to refund an amount of Rs.40,000/- but the complainant refused to accept the same.
In view of the above, it is clear from the documents and arguments on behalf of the parties that the complainant after giving the order refused to accept the same, as the OP had not made the items as per specifications. The OP, vide order dated 19.07.2013, sold the goods. The complainant failed to prove any unfair trade practice on behalf of the OP.
We allow the complaint partly and directed the OP to refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant which is paid by the complainant as an advance payment.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs.9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 01.11.18.
