Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 255
Instituted on : 17.07.2020
Decided on : 15.07.2024
Rajinder Singh Kataria S/o Sh.Anant Ram Kataria R/o H.No.1 W.No.21 Vishal Nagar, Opp. Hotel D2M Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- DS&V K Interiors, Plot No. 11, Near PindBallichi, Sheela Bye Pass, Rohtak Through its partner/proprietor.
- Manager DS & VK Interiors. Plot No.11, Near PindBallichi, Sheela Bye Pass, Rohtak.
- Home City Furniture Pvt. Ltd. MIE. Part-Il opposite PDM Metro Station Bahadurgarh. Through its Director.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.AbhishekNarwal, Advocate for opposite party No.1& 2.
Sh.Anil Kumar Saroha Advocate for opposite party No. 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that opposite party No.3 is manufacturer of home furniture & interiors and Opposite party No.1 is franchisee of opposite party No.3 and Opposite party No.2 is the Manager of opposite party No.1 and they deal in home furniture & interiors. The complainant went to the showroom/shop of opposite party No.1 on 18.07.2018 for purchase of a bed. The opposite party No.1 & 2 showed a "Pamela Bed" with 2 side tables and told the complainant that the same was operated by hydraulic system while opening the box and it was made of termite proof board on all sides including the bottom of its box and 2 side tables of matching colour of the bed will also be given with the said bed. The complainant ultimately finalized to place order for purchasing Pamela Bed with side tables and paid a sum of Rs.45000/- including all taxes and charges to the opposite party No.1 & 2. After receipt of the payment, the opposite party No. 1 & 2 told that the another piece of the same type and model of the bed will be sent by next day to the residence of the complainant. Opposite party No1 & 2 sent the double bed to the residence of the complainant on 19.07.2018 while the complainant was not available at his residence. On reaching home in the evening of the same day, the complainant checked thebed and found that to his surprise, bottom of the box of the bed was open and no ply or board was fixed there. Thus there was no use of the box of the bed because no item could be kept in the same. The hydraulic system of the bed was so weak that it could not work when a mattress is placed on the bed. The bed was having two side tables but the said table was not of same colour andnot matched with the colour of the bed. The drawer of theside table normally remains open being without lock. Complainant immediately contacted the opposite party No.2 and asked him to take the bed back but the opposite party no.2 expressed his inability to take the bed back without consulting opposite party No.1 & 3. Lateron the opposite parties lingered on the matter and after lapse of one year, they refused to take the bed back. The opposite parties have cheated the complainant by supplying him a defective bed and have failed to replace the bed or to refund the amount to the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to take back the defective bed and to refund the amount of Rs.45000/- with interest @ 24% from the date of receipt of the amount upto the final payment to the complainant, to pay a compensation of Rs.50000/- for harassment and Rs.30000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint,notices were issued to the opposite parties.Opposite parties No.1&2 in their reply has submitted that the bed was shown to the complainant before it was sent to the complainant.It was unpacked and fixed in the house of the complainant in the presence of complainant and his family. The complainant and his family checked the functioning of the bed thoroughly and they were fully satisfied by the same. It is wrong and denied that the complainant checked the bed and found no ply or board was fixed in the bottom of the box. It is also denied that the hydraulic system of the bed was week or that the dryer of the side table remains open being without lock. In fact the bed was imported one from China and no warranty or guarantee or any assurance in any manner was ever issued to complainant. The allegations regarding missing of ply or board or colour of side tables is different are false and if such was the situation, the complainant must have thrown the same on the very next day. Moreover, as admitted the opposite party no. 1 is a franchise and the complaint is not maintainable against party no. I and 2.It is wrong and denied that the opposite party No. 1 and 2 assured the complainant that they will get the needful done after receipt of permission from O.P No 3. The complainant is not entitled to any claim as there is no defect in the bed. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that the facts regarding purchase of bed by the complainant are admitted. It is further submitted that at the time of delivery, the complainant checked the item properly and no defect was found at that time and no guarantee and warranty of the item was given by the respondents. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 20.03.2024. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.1 &2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 10.04.2024. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.3 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed his evidence on 10.04.2024.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. The contention of opposite party No. 1 & 2 is that they are franchise of respondent no.3. Hence they have no liability. It is further contended that the bed was intact and was fixed in the presence of complainant and his family members. If there is any defect in the bed, only the manufacturer is liable for the same. As per opposite party No.3, it was given in good condition and at that time no defect was found by the complainant. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. After perusal of the photograph Ex.C2, it is observed that 4 boxes have been framed at the bottom of the bed but no ply or board is affixed at the bottom portion to keep anything inside the boxes. As per our opinion, the purpose of hydraulic system is that a person can lift the upper portion of the bed and do the use of box easily but if there is nothing installed/affixed in the lower part of the double bed then what is the use of hydraulic system. As per our opinion a defective bed has been supplied to the complainant by the respondents and there is manufacturing defect in the alleged bed. As such manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.45000/-(Rupees forty five thousand only) and to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainantwithin 45 days failing which opposite party No.3 shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.45000/-(Rupees forty five thousand only) from the date of announcement of this order i.e. 15.07.2024 till its realisation. However, complainant is directed to hand over the bed in question to the opposite party No.3. Opposite party no.3 is directed to pick up the same from the house of complainant at its own cost.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.07.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
