Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 20.11.2015
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to refund the price of the furniture i.e. 22,800/- ( Rs. Twenty Two Thousand Eight hundred only ).
- To pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty thousand only ) as Compensation.
- To pay Rs. 60,000/- ( Rs. Sixty thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The complainant has asserted following facts in complaint petition :-
In hand written petition the complainant has asserted that he has purchased a dining set from opposite party vide Annexure – 1. The aforesaid set was delivered to the complainant on 17.08.2011. While the fitters of the opposite party were fitting the aforesaid set then it was detected that the foot of centre table were not properly polished and were rusted. When complainant asked from the aforesaid fitter how the stainless foot have got rusted then they did not replied and assured him to change the set and thereafter the complainant returned the aforesaid set and he visited several time to the shop of opposite party for new set. It has been further asserted that when request of the complainant to return the price of the aforesaid table was refused by the opposite party then he selected another price but another set was delivered after few days. The opposite party sent two fitters and a dining set and when the fitters opened the dining set then it was found to be rejected piece as the finishing of the product was not up to mark and the table glass was not properly fitted and there was manufacturing defect in the set. Thereafter he contacted Mr. Saurav Kumar and requested him to change the dining set. After several phone calls and request on 06.02.2012 opposite party sent two persons for enquiry and thereafter he refused to change the set on 08.02.2012 and abused the complainant Mani Prasad and her husband.
From the record it appears that when the registered notice did not return then vide order dated 17.05.2013 the valid tamila was declared and the opposite party was asked to file written statement vide order dated 05.08.2013. Thereafter the case was earlier heard as ex – parte on 20.01.2014 but the order could not be passed as the chairman of the forum retired. Then the case was heard ex – parte on 18.09.2015.
It is needless to say that vide Annexure – 1 itis clearly proved that the complainant had purchased the aforesaid dining set for the price of Rs. 22,800/- ( Rs. Twenty two Thousand Eight Hundred only ) on 17.08.2011. the complainant has asserted that as the dining set was not found fit and the foots were rusted hence he changed it but another set had also manufacture defect.
The aforesaid facts asserted by complainant on affidavit definitely prove deficiency on the part of opposite party. As the fact asserted by the complainant in his complaint petition has neither been denied nor been controverted by the opposite party. Hence we have no option but to accept the fact asserted by the complainant in the complaint petition.
For the reason stated above, we direct the opposite party to refund the price of the dining set i.e. Rs. 22,800/- ( Rs. Twenty two Thousand Eight Hundred only ) within two months from date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party will have to pay an interest @ 10% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22,800/- till its final payment.
The complainant is also directed to return the dining set after receiving the price from the opposite party if not returned earlier.
Aforesaid the opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the aforesaid period of two months.
Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
