BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VBVAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 177/2019  Filed on 14/06/2019

ORDER DATED: 05/03/2022

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT: 

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

1. The case of the complaint in short is that on 21/11/2014 the complainant booked a sofa set from the stall of the opposite party from the Ananthapuri Fest.  The value of the sofa set is Rs.31,500/- and the complainant paid Rs.2000/- in advance.  The opposite party promised to deliver the sofa set within one week from the date of placing order.  But the opposite party failed to keep that promise.  The complainant frequently contacted the opposite party through phone and by personally approaching the opposite party’s shop at Kochu ulloor and finally on 22/09/2015 the opposite party delivered the sofa set to the complainant.  The opposite party informed the complainant that this sofa set is having one year replacement guaranty and 5 year warranty.  Within one year from the date of delivery of this sofa set, it became damaged and by 2019 the sofa set become totally damaged and could not be used for any purpose.  Hence the complainant frequently telephoned to the opposite party and the opposite party promised to send a representative to the house of the complainant on 04/02/2019.  But that promise was also not fulfilled by the opposite party.  At last as there is a family function on 28/03/2019 the complainant contacted the opposite party and due to frequent contact by the complainant to the opposite party, the opposite party promised to deliver a new set for the time being and old sofa set will be repaired at their cost.  As there is no other option, the complainant agreed for the same.  And accordingly the complainant went to the shop with vehicle and at that time the opposite party has denied the earlier promises given to the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant approached this Commission for redressing her grievances. 
2. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties, and the notice issued to the 1^st opposite party was returned “not known” and 2^nd opposite party accepted the notice.  On 16/10/2019 the 2^nd opposite party was called absent and set ex parte.  Subsequently the complainant filed an IA to struck off the 1^st opposite party from party array and the same was allowed and 1^st opposite party was deleted from the party array as per order in IA.24/2020.
3. The evidence in this case consists of PW1, and Ext.P1 marked on the side of the complainant.  As the opposite party was declared ex parte there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party.         

4. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the

     part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the complaint?
3. Order as to cost?

5. Heard.  Perused records and affidavit. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the complainant.  Ext.A1 is the order form which shows that the complainant has placed order for the sofa set with the opposite party by paying Rs.2000/-.  Though the actual price of sofa set is Rs.31,500/- from the Ananthapurai Fest the offer price was Rs.29,500/-.  Ext.A1 also shows that the said product is having one year replacement guaranty and 5 years warranty.  It also discloses that the sofa set was delivered only on 22/09/2015, though the order was placed on 21/11/2014.  The opposite party also endorsed that balance cash received on 22/09/2015.  Hence it is evident that there is delay of more than 10 months for delivery of the goods ordered by the complainant on 21/11/2014.  Hence by producing Ext.A1 the complainant has proved the transaction with opposite party for consideration and the delay in delivery also evident from Ext.A1.  Regarding damages there is no evidence available before this Commission.  But as the complainant approached this Commission with complaint regarding the damage of the sofa set and in the absence of any contra evidence on the part of the opposite party, we are accepting the version of the complainant that this sofa set was having damages.  But there is no proof before this Commission to quantify the damage caused to the furniture.  From the available evidence before this Commission, we find that due to the delay in delivery and due to the damages of the furniture within the warranty period, complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony.  We find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussion we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her case against the opposite party except with regard to the quantum of damage of the furniture.  In the above circumstances we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in part.
6. In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation along with Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till the date of realization/remittance. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 5^th  day of March,  2022.

C.C. No. 177/19

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:  NIL

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT