Date of filing:- 04/03/2015

Date of Order:- 18/04/2016

                                                        DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complainant No. 13 of 2015.

Sri Deepak Kumar Dash, aged about 31(thirty one) years, S/o Sri Ashok Kumar Dash, R/o Behind Mini Stadium, Bargarh, Word No.13, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh, Pin-768028.

V e r s u s -

1. Chandan Brothers, Near Private Bus Stand, Bargarh, Pin-768028 (Odisha) Tin-21641700396, At present, near Bhatali Chowk and Kishori Nurshing Home, Bargarh, Po/Ps. Dist. Bargarh Pin-768028, Odisha

2. Godrej and boyee manufacturing Company Limited, represented through it's Managing Director, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079.

..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri S.P. Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties:- Ex-parte.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Mrs Anjali Behera .... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.(w)I/c President.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Dt.18/04/2016. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, Member.

Complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the brief fact of the case is described here under.

The Opposite Party No.1(one) is the seller of the Godrej Products where as the Opposite Party No.2(two) is the manufacturer of the godrej products.The Complainant had purchased one Flutter king Bed, one Flutter 3 Door Wardrobe, One Flutter premium dressing Table, One Flutter Bed side Table and Godrej Mattress with 02 pillows from Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt. 04/03/2014 vide Bill No.2297 for a price of Rs.1,06,536/-(Rupees one lakh six thousand five hundred thirty six)only and he was assured by the Opposite Party No.1(one) that after sale service would be rendered on those products. That after using those products for some days the Complainant found some defects like the drawer of Flutter premium Dressing Table was non properly sliding, the material of the Flutter 3 Door Wardrobe was not properly furnished, the material of Fluttter Bed side table was not properly installed and Godrej mattresses caused depression while pressing on higher side. This fact was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party No.1(one) both orally and in writing for many times and the Opposite Party No.1(one) also assured the Complainant to replace the material to make good of those products but the Opposite Party No.1(one) till date failed to keep his assurance.

Further the Complaint contends that the Opposite Party No.1(one) intentionally avoided the Complaint made by the Complainant for removal of defects found in those Godrej Products purchased by the Complainant and the Complainant suffered a lot for the negligent act of the Opposite Party No.1(one) in not rendering service towards the replacemen of the defective products sold to the Complainant which it self an unfair Trade practice by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and both the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant for the said negligence. The Complainant therefore prayed for the direction of the forum to direct both the Opposite Parties to replace Flutter 3 Door wardrobe, Flutter premium Dressing Table, Flutter Bed side Table and Godrej mattress and to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards Mental agony caused to the Complainant and litigation cost.

The Complainant in support of his contention relies upon the xerox copies of the following documents :-

1. Retail invoice bearing No.2297 Dt.04/03/2014 (One sheet).

2. Pleader notice of the Complainant (Two sheets).

Inspite of being duly noticed both the Opposite Parties never appeared before the forum for participation in the courts proceeding and both the Opposite Parties are set exparte in the Complaint and the Complaint is posted for Exparte hearing.

Heard pleading of the Complainant through his counsel, perused the documents filed by the Complainant, the forum found points to be decided in this Complaint are as follows:-

1. 1. Whether the Opposite Parties are liable for unfair Trade practice and deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant ?

   2. For what relief if any the Complainant is entitled for ?

       

Upon perusal of Retail invoice No. 2297 Dt.04/03/2014, it found that the Complainant has paid the consideration money to purchase the Godrej furniture and once consideration money is accepted for selling of any product by the retailer or manufacturer of the product ,the purchaser becomes the consumer of the retailer as well as of the manufacture. The Complainant/Consumer is then entitle for service from the seller and manufacturer of the products. Here in the instant case the Complainant alleged that inspite of many oral and written Complaint to the Opposite party No.1(one) for removal of defects or in alternative for replacement of products, the Opposite Parties neither removed the defects found in the products nor provided any after sale service to him. The pleader notice sent to the Opposite parties also did not replied so also inspite of being duly summoned neither of the Opposite Parties appeared before the forum to make any reply which sufficiently proved that the trader of Godrej product i.e. the local dealer at Bargarh and the manufacturer both are doing monopoly practice of their trade by cheating the people for their hard earned money paid to them. Such acts of Opposite Parties are nothing, but unfair trade practice enumerated under the provisions of 2 (i) (q) (viii) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the local dealer while selling the products to the Complainant has assured to provide after sale service.

In the instant case and circumstance the Complainant being a genuine consumer for purchasing the goods from Opposite Party No.1(one) is entitled for proper relief provided in the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

Owing to the facts and circumstance of the case so also the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986 the forum order as follows:-

O R D E R

The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to remove all the defects found in the Godrej Furniture sold to the Complainant vide retail invoice Bill No. 2297 Dt.04/03/2014 by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and also further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only to the Complainant for all inconvenience and litigation cost caused to him for the acts of Opposite Parties within thirty days of the date of Order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the actual date of execution of Order.

Complaint allowed and disposed off accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

I agree, (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)

M e m b e r.

( Smt. Anjali Behera)

M e m b e r. I/c President