BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA No. 321 OF 2017 AGAINST CC No.84 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD
Between :
M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,
201 & 202, Lala -1, Land Mark, 5-4-4-94 to 97,
Ranigunj, 2nd Floor, M.G. Road,
Secunderabad – 500003.
Rep. by N.Badhari Nathu,
Branch Commercial Manager
(Hyderabad Branch). …Appellant / Opposite Party
AND
Chandrasekhar Kallakuracharla,
S/o. Sri K.Appa Rao, Age : 39 years,
R/o. Flat No.202, Active Hill Reside,
Janardhan Hills, Near NCC. Gachibowli,
Hyderabad – 500032. ....Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite Party : Sri Srinivas Gopisetty & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant /: Party in Person
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Hon’ble Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Thursday the 19th day of April
Two thousand Eighteen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
Challenge is made to the Order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad (for brevity, ‘the District Forum’) in C.C.No.84/2016 directing the Opposite Party furniture dealer to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/- by granting one month time for due compliance. The Appellant is the Opposite Party and the Respondent is the Complainant in the present Appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the complaint.
- The case of the Complainant before the District Forum, in a nutshell, is that he purchased furniture worth Rs.3,48,896/- for his new flat in the month of January,2015 and that it was delivered in the month of March, 2015 but with damaged Coffee Table worth Rs.12,892.64 ps., and incorrect sub assemblies of Recliner Sofa worth Rs.41,183.07 ps. The further case of the Complainant is that though the service advisor of the Opposite Party furniture dealer assured to replace the said two items within a month but failed to keep up the promise. After waiting for about six months for the same the Complainant approached the District Forum by way of the Complaint under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short, the Act) seeking direction to the Opposite Party dealer to deliver the above said goods with one year warrantee from the date of their installation and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
- The Opposite Party furniture dealer resisted the claim before the District Forum on the grounds, interalia, that though the new Coffee Table and Recliner Sofa were installed on 24.03.2016 at the Complainant’s flat after collecting back the old ones, he filed the present complaint, even without giving any notice to the Opposite Party and that too with false and baseless allegations. The further defence is that no doubt there was a delay in installation of the two items but it was occurred only on account of the Complainant himself as he postponed the installation work on number of occasions giving various reasons and at times no family members were available at his flat when Service Team of the Opposite Party Dealer visited it. Finally, only sometime in the month of November / December, 2015 he gave permission to complete the installation work. With these contentions, the Opposite Party Dealer sought dismissal of the complaint with costs.
- During the course of enquiry, before the District Forum the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit and relied on the documents under Exs.A1 to A8 to substantiate the claim. The Opposite Party has filed evidence affidavit of it’s Branch Manager and relied on Exs.B1 to B5, in defence.
- Basing on the material evidence and hearing the parties, the learned District Forum has passed the Order as noted in Para-1 supra, which is now impugned in the present Appeal.
- The contention of the Appellant/ Opposite Party in the present Appeal, which has been filed under Section-15 of the Act, 1986, in brief, is that District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that the Service Team of the Opposite Party Dealer, though visited number of times to the flat of the Complainant, he postponed the installation work on some or other ground and that at times nobody was present at the flat. The District Forum has also erred in noticing the aspect that only in the month of November / December-2015 the Complainant permitted the Opposite Party Dealer to complete the installation work and accordingly it was completed on 24.03.2016 after collecting back the old items. Thus, the Complainant, on face of it, did not approach the District Forum with clean hands but obtained the impugned Order by misrepresenting and suppressing the real facts and that as such the same is liable to be set aside.
- Perused the material evidence placed on record, impugned Order and the written arguments of both the parties. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant / Opposite Party and the Respondent / Complainant in person.
- Now the point for consideration is that:
whether the impugned Order is erroneous and illegal, both on facts and under law, and that as such liable to be set aside?
9. Point:- It is not in dispute that the Complainant has purchased certain furniture including a Rhine Recliner three seater Sofa worth Rs.41,183.07 ps., and a Cafeteria Coffee Table worth Rs.12,892.64 ps., from the Opposite Party Dealer in the month of January, 2015 by placing an order and making payment thereof. The said order was confirmed by the Opposite Party Dealer on 30.01.2015 vide Order Confirmation Form, Ex.A1. On delivery of the items, it was found that the Recliner Sofa was supplied with missing left seater and the Coffee Table was in a damaged condition. Ex.A2 is the Inspection Report dated 04.08.2015 of the Opposite Party’s Service Executive. As per the Complainant, the Service Advisor of the Opposite Party Dealer had assured him to replace the said two items within one month’s time but failed to do so. The Opposite Party Dealer did not dispute this fact. The Complainant has specifically averred in the Complaint that despite several phone calls there was no response from the Opposite Party Dealer and that even sending of the e-mails thereafter, proved futile. Exs.A3, A4 & A6 are copies of said e-mails dated 18.11.2015, 24.11.2015 & 11.01.2016 respectively. The Complainant has specifically given the list of pending works in another correspondence dated 27.11.2015 vide Ex.A5. These documents clearly show the efforts made by the Complainant to get the things set right but there was no proper response from the Opposite Party Dealer. It seems even thereafter the Complainant continued to pursue the Opposite Party Dealer in getting the pending works completed and that at last on 03.03.2016 he received a response from the Dealer with further assurance of completing the said works by seeking one week time. The Complainant has filed printouts of the SMS received from the Opposite Party Dealer vide Ex.A8 during the period from 03.03.2016 to 24.03.2016. In all these messages the Opposite Party Dealer had assured time and again to complete the work and settle the issue and at last did the same only on 24.03.2016 by taking back the old items. Ex.B2 to B4 are copies of receipts regarding replacement of the items in question and taking back the old ones.
10. All the facts stated above manifestly show that the Complainant was made to suffer with the attitude of the Opposite Party Dealer causing undue hardship and mental agony. It is also pertinent to note that vexed with the said attitude, he was constrained to file the Complaint before the District Forum on 10.02.2016. It seems on receipt of a notice in it, the Opposite Party Dealer had discharged it’s obligation of replacement of the defective items on 24.03.2016. All these material facts clearly disprove the defence set up by the Opposite Party Dealer to the effect that despite visit of it’s Service Adviser several times, the Complainant himself did not co-operate and simply postponed the issue on some or other pretext and that at times there was no person in his flat to allow to attend the work. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it is a clear case of not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party Dealer and that as such it deserves to be punished suitably.
11. We have given careful consideration to the Order under Appeal. In our opinion, the learned District Forum has appreciated all the relevant and material aspects in a right perspective in the light of the evidence borne by record and came to a just and reasonable conclusion which is neither perverse nor erroneous and that as such needs no interference. In this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned Order deserves to be confirmed, but with a modification with regard to the quantum of Compensation awarded by the Forum below since it appears to be somewhat higher. Therefore, in the given circumstance it is reasonably reduced from Rs.50,000/- and settled at Rs.25,000/- to meet the ends of justice and equity. With this modification, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. The point is answered accordingly.
13. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with modification of the impugned Order by reducing the quantum of Compensation to Rs.25,000/- with Costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Time for compliance 4 weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 19.04.2018
