This case is coming for final hearing on 24-03-2014 in the presence of Sri M.Hari Mehar Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri Kandala Srinivasa Rao Advocate for Opposite Party and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                  

                                                                                                     : O R D E R :

                                           (As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite party i.e., Big Bazaar announced a scheme on April 2011 under which its customers while purchasing new items can exchange old household articles in lieu of cash.  Then, on 09.04.2011 the Complainant went to the opposite party’s show room to purchase dining table with chairs by paying partly cash and by exchanging partly with old articles.  The Complainant purchased dining table set i.e., Model Maya table with six chairs (articles code 8000128 and 49001) for an amount of Rs.34,249/-.  The Complainant partly paid by way of cash of Rs.14,249 + Rs.20,000/- in the form of old articles in exchange.  The Opposite party issued cash receipt for Rs.14,249/- and no cash receipt for old articles of Rs.20,000/- and the Opposite party agreed to deliver the item within 15 days. After repeated requests, the Opposite party delivered dining table with chairs and after delivery, the complainant found that two chairs were broken within two months due to defects gradually.  Then, the Complainant apprehending that the table will also be broken, kept aside without using it.  The Complainant requested the Opposite party over phone to replace the table set for which the Opposite party requested as there was no stock.  The Complainant reported the matter to one Mr. Venkat twice and the daughter of the complainant wrote a letter for which they promised that they will come and take photographs, but in vain.  Then, the Complainant and her daughter wrote a complaint in the book given by Mr. Shankar but there was no response.  The Complainant is a 70 years old woman and heart patient.  Finally on 25.02.2012 the Complainant made a written complaint and handover at the office of the Opposite party, but there was no use, then, the Complainant issued a Legal Notice on 28.04.2012 to opposite party’s web site.  But there was no response from the Opposite party, which clearly shows their unfair trade practice and inaction of replacing broken item which is deficiency of service.  Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite party:

a) to pay Rs.34,249/- with 24% p.a. interest from 09.04.2011 till the date of realization.

b) to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- besides costs.

2.       On the otherhand, the Opposite party filed its counter and denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded that the Complainant was duly supplied the dining table set and used the said for a considerable period i.e., 10 months and when the complainant wanted replacement of two chairs on the date of delivery, as she wanted another shade by colour were promptly replaced, but that fact was intentionally avoided to mention in her complaint.  It is false to state that any lower standard material was supplied or any broken items were supplied, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and also no unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainant.  The Complainant after verification and satisfying herself as to the quality of the product and other aspects she purchased the same and there was no complaint with regard to the said dining table and chairs.  Hence, this complaint is not maintainable.

3.       At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed affidavit along with documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4.  On the otherhand, the Opposite party filed its counter, but not filed its evidence affidavit even after imposing costs by the Forum, hence treated no evidence affidavit for opposite party.  Both the counsels filed their written arguments along with petition which were allowed.  The Complainant’s counsel represented no oral submissions, hence treated it heard.  Heard the Opposite party who reiterated his versions. 

4.       In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

          Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

5.       The fact that as per Ex.A1 i.e., Cash receipt issued by the opposite party on 09.04.2011 is not in dispute.  In Ex.A1 it was clearly mentioned about dining table along with six chairs.  The version of the Complainant is that immediately after purchase of the dining set with chairs, the chairs were broken and she assumes that the table will also broken, hence she kept side without using it.  She roamed around the opposite party’s shop and requested them to replace the table and chairs for which the opposite party postponed the issue.  Ex.A3 is the letter issued by the Complainant to Opposite party on 25.02.2012 regarding the defects in the dining table set.  Ex.A4 is the lawyer’s notice issued by the Complainant on 28.04.2012 to the web site of the opposite party.  Ex.A2 is the photographs of the chairs purchased by the complainant.

6.       The version of the opposite party is that immediately after the purchase of the dining table set along with chairs, the Complainant on the date of delivery itself requested the opposite party to change the colour of the chairs and the opposite party obliged her request and change the chairs and in fact the Complainant after due verification only purchased dining table.  The Complainant approached the opposite party after 10 months of purchase and used the product for 10 months and intentionally avoided to mention when the dining table set was delivered and when the chairs were changed etc.

7.       Evidently, as per exhibits filed by the Complainant, she purchased the dining table set and after 10 months of purchase she issued notice to the Opposite party but there was no response from the Opposite party and it is to be noted that Ex.A2 is the four photographs filed by the Complainant shows only chairs but there was no photograph of dining table. The plea of the complainant is that she assumed that the dining table also will break down and hence, she kept it aside, but the Complaint filed on 08.05.2012 but she purchased table set on 09.04.2011.  The Photographs Ex.A2 shows that the front legs of chairs are broken; hence we are of the view that the wooden item will not be break within 10 months if those are rightly manufactured. 

8.       The relief prayed by the Complainant is to refund an amount of Rs.34,249/- with interest as the cost of the dining table with chairs but we are of the view that she purchased that article with exchange of old articles and that too the Complainant not filed any evidence regarding the defect in dining table.  The oral submissions made by the opposite party’s counsel that they have expressed their willingness to rectify the defect of chairs, but the Complainant did not come forward. 

9.       Hence, the Opposite party has to rectify the defects of the chairs which are broke down and make them in order, but the Complainant not filed the possession of the dining table that too, the complainant said that the dining table was not used and it is kept aside. 

10.     The Complainant even after purchasing the dining table set, she has not used the dining table as the legs of the chairs are broken and suffered financial as well as mental loss.  Hence, we are of the view that awarding compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation which would be just and proper.

11.     Accordingly, this point is answered.

12.     In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed directing the Opposite party to rectify the defects of six numbers of chairs and repair them and hand it over to the Complainant within one month under proper acknowledgement.  The Opposite party further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three  thousand only) towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only).

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of March, 2014.

  Sd/-                                                                                  Sd/-

Member                                                                          President (FAC)

                                                                             District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                       Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party:

NIL

     Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

  Member                                                                         President (FAC)

                                                                             District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                       Visakhapatnam