BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

26^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.60,999/- to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages, monetary loss and mental agony. Also direct OPs to pay legal notice charges of Rs.10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant had purchased full set of Manila sofa 3+1+1 from OP-1 on 09.04.2016.  After the purchase of the said sofa, it came to light that they have given a defective sofa of 3 set.  The complainant was unable to use the three set sofa.  That the backside wooden board of the three set sofa is broken and the noise was coming at the time of use.  The complainant immediately informed the OP-1 and they promised that they come and rectify the defect of the said three sofa set within one or two days.  But their people didn’t come to the complainant’s house and not checked the defective sofa.  The complainant made personal request and phone calls to the OPs.1 & 2.  When repeated request made by the complainant and his son and several visits to the shops of OPs, OP-1 promised the complainant’s son that they will replace the said 3 set sofa.  The complainant son was taken few photos and sent it by Whatsapp whereas the said OP-1 had promised to take back the said sofa assuring that the defect will be rectified within one week and will give it back.  Thereafter they went on postponing the same by giving unsatisfactory and evasive answers and OPs.1 & 2 never bothered to resolve the issue and shifting the blame on each others.  At last on 16.06.2016 the OP-1 came to complainant house, checked the sofa and took back the said 3 set sofa.  After the completion of one month i.e., on 16.07.2016 OP-1 returned the said sofa.  When the complainant has checked the said sofa, he came to know that the OP-1 has not changed the original wooden board of backside, just they put some clamps.  Immediately the complainant spoke to the OPs.  But they gave unsatisfactory and evasive answers. 

The complainant being left with no other alternative got issued a legal notice dated 19.07.2016. OP-1 received the legal notice but they didn’t answer to the said notice.  The OPs sold the defective sofa set, then shifting the responsibility on one another and giving false assurance and also blame on each other amounts to grave deficiency of service.  The complainant felt deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Hence complainant filed this complaint against OPs. 

3. After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to OPs.  After OPs entered their appearance through their advocate but failed to file version despite sufficient time and opportunity given.  Therefore the case was posted for filing affidavit of the complainant. 

4. So as to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit evidence in support of complaint reiterating the complaint averments and produced the copies of documents. 

5. The above said assertions of the complaint have remained unchallenged OPs neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6. Here in this complaint the complainant had purchased the full set of Manila sofa 3+1+1 from OP-1 on 09.04.2016.  The complainant has produced the copy of sales order for having paid a sum of Rs.60,990/- to the OP-1 towards the price of the sofa set in question as Annexure-A.  Warranty card also produced by the complainant as Annexure-B.  The complainant has brought to the notice of the OP-1 the defects found in the sofa set immediately after noticing the same.  But they didn’t attend the defects of the sofa.  Admittedly the defects as noticed by the complainant have occurred within one year from the date of purchase. 

7. In spite of repeated requests and several visits to the OPs shop, OPs failed to resolve the issue.  The OPs gave false assurance and postponing the same by giving evasive reply.  Though the OP visited the complainant’s house and took back to repair the sofa, they returned the said sofa by just putting some clamps without changing the wooden board.  When the complainant asked the OPs, they gave evasive answer.  Therefore, complainant got issued a legal notice which is produced as Annexure-C.  But the OPs failed to reply to the notice.  Admittedly the said sofa set is covered by a warranty.  Though no specific warranty period is mentioned in the warranty clause but it is made clear that the warranty of the product is limited to manufacturing defects.  However, under the said warranty clause, the OPs have undertaken to repair/replace the defective product/components as required and necessary.  Thus from the said warranty clause OPs are liable to repair/replace a defective product/component if the same has occurred due to manufacturing defect.

  8. From the available materials placed on record, the failure of OPs to rectify the defect or to replace the sofa with new one amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  From the documents produced by the complainant, it is very clear that, the OPs sold the defective sofa set and trying to cheat the innocent customer.  Even after service of legal notice in this regard OPs have failed either to replace the sofa set or refund the price.  The OPs never bothered to resolve the issue.  This act of OPs in not delivering the product which was in good condition and not providing proper service must have put the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  The very fact of OPs not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OPs are admitting the claim of the complainant.  There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced.  The complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony by the foul play of OPs. 

9. The conduct of the OPs in selling a sub-standard product representing to be a good quality product and failing to replace defective product or refund the price of the same amounts to grave deficiency of service.  In the given circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to direct the OPs to refund Rs.60,990/- being the price of the sofa set to the complainant.  Further they shall have to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

10. In the result, we proceed to pass the following.

       O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OPs are directed to refund Rs.60,990/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Only) being the price of sofa set to the complainant.  Further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

OPs shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 26^th day of November 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 02.11.2016.

1. Sri. M.P Venkata Reddy

          OPs.        -       Absent

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*