Date of filing: 26.06.2014.
Date of disposal: 07.01.2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 7th day of January, 2015
C.C.No.142 of 2014
Between:
Consumer Guidance Society Representing: B. Venkata Rao, S/o late B. Ramadas, Aged about 44 years, R/o.D.No.10-79B, NRT Statue Road, Enikepadu, Vijayawada Rural – 522 108.
…..Complainant.
And
Authorized Signatory, Sri Uma Furniture Works, Near Mohandas Theatre, Bundar Road, Patamata, Vijayawada – 520 010.
.. … Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 05.01.2015, in the presence of Consumer Guidance Society for complainant; Sri P. Chitti Babu, advocate for opposite party; and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party directing it to replace the defective sofa set with a defect free one or in the alternative repair it so as to bring it to the original status, to award compensation for Rs.5,000/- and other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant upon the alluring representations made by opposite party, the complainant purchased a sofa set along with accessory covers for Rs.31,000/- on 4-5-2013 and the opposite party issued invoice after receipt of entire sale consideration. But the complainant noticed that there is receding of cushioning pushing it to the bottom, manifestation of apparent and widening cracks and falling of continuous dust powder from the wood structure of sofa. The complainant requested the opposite party many a time to get the defective sofa set repaired and finally the opposite party repaired the sofa set and delivered it to complainant. But the opposite party delivered the said defective sofa set by charging transportation charges. The complainant thereafter informed the opposite party about the defects in the sofa, but the opposite party bluntly refused to entertain his request. The complainant having vexed with the attitude of opposite party got issued legal notice dt.4.1.2014 to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice and got issued reply dt.17.1.2014 denying the sale of furniture. As the opposite party failed to rectify the defect in the Sofa, the complainant filed the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party. The opposite party filed its version denying the allegations made in the complaint and contended that there is no consumer relationship in between the complainant and opposite party and that on 4-5-2013 the complainant approached the opposite party with an intention to purchase sofa and enquired about the cost of all types of sofas and obtained quotation for the purpose of finalizing the sofa and that the opposite party issued quotation, but later the complainant did not turn up. It is further contended that no sale transaction was done between complainant and opposite party and that they used to issue bills on each and every transactions and that they never issued quotations and that as no sale transaction took place between the complainant and opposite party, the question of repair of sofa does not arise and finally prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 on his behalf. The Proprietor of opposite party filed affidavit, but no documents were marked.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. Now the points that stood for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in supplying defective sofa set to complainant?
- If so, to what relief?
6. Point No.1:
The case of complainant is that on 4-5-2013 he purchased a sofa set from the opposite party for Rs.31,000/- under Ex.A1 and later he found some defects in the sofa set and produced the same before opposite party for repairs. Though the opposite party stated that they got repaired the sofa set, the defects were not rectified and on the other hand later refused to repair the sofa set. The complainant got issued legal notice under Ex.A2 and the opposite party issued reply notice under Ex.A3 denying the purchase of sofa set by complainant. The complainant issued rejoinder under Ex.A4. In this regard, the contention of the opposite party is that on 4-5-2013 the complainant approached their shop and obtained quotation only under Ex.A1 and he never purchased the sofa set from them and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part. The base for this case is only Ex.A1. Admittedly Ex.A1 is a quotation dt.4.5.2013 issued by opposite party. Perusal of Ex.A1 and version of opposite party discloses that the opposite party issued quotation for “Puti sofa set with Rose wood polish for Rs.27,000/-, Additional sofa cover for Rs.1,000/-, 36 x 21 size glass teepai for Rs.4,000/-, Old dinging table chair repair Rs.1000/- “Further perusal of Ex.A1 discloses that the opposite party took Rs.1,000/- and there is also a payment/deduction of Rs.2,275/- and there is some figures ‘28725’ and ‘28500’. If really the Ex.A1 is only a quotation, there is no need to mention the payments etc., in it. Further no company will issue quotation for repairs. In this case, the opposite party also mentioned the repair for dining chair as Rs.1000/-. In these circumstances, this Forum has no option except to believe the contention of complainant. But the complainant being prudent purchase ought to have demanded the opposite party to issue cash bill in stead of Ex.A1. Mere mentioning in the complaint that despite demand for cash bill, the opposite party issued quotation under Ex.A1 is not sufficient. As such we found deficiency on the part of complainant as well as opposite party. The complainant in the prayer claimed to get the defective sofa set repaired. As such we inclined to allow the complaint.
Point No.2:
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to get the defective sofa set repaired and deliver to the complainant with good condition within one month from the date of receipt of this order besides payment of costs of Rs.500/-. The complainant is directed to bear the half of the expenses for repairs and to hand over the sofa set to opposite party for repairs within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to compensation. The other claims of complainant shall stands dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 7th day of January, 2015.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -Nil- For the opposite party: -Nil-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 04.05.2013 Original copy of quotation.
Ex.A2 04.01.2014 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP and Postal acknowledgements.
Ex.A3 17.01.2014 Copy of reply issued by OP to complainant’s counsel.
Ex.A4 10.02.2014 Copy of of rejoinder notice got issued by complainant to OP.
On behalf of the opposite party: - Nil-
PRESIDENT (FAC)
