Order No. -13                                                                                                       Dt.-24/08/2015

        Shri Asoke Kumar Das, President

        Complainant’s case in brief is that she ordered/booked an almirah on 18/05/2014 for her personal use from the O.P. (Decora Furniture) by an advance of Rs.1000/- The almirah has been delivered to her on 01/11/2014 at her residence. After using it for merely 7 days the almirah broke down, the lock ruptured and side panels started coming off. The complainant intimated the matter verbally and over the telephone to the O.P.. But O.P. didn’t take any action to solve the matter. The complainant also send a letter to the O.P. dated 31/12/2014 asking immediate solution of the matter within 7 days. But the attitude of the O.P. remained same. Hence complainant was compelled to lodge complaint against the O.P. before this Forum  on 17/02/2015 with prayers for replacement of almirah or refund of Rs.18,500/-, compensation for mental agony and for litigation cost. Hence the case.

             The O.P. has contested the case by filing a Written Version (petition) denying and disputing inter-alia the claim and contention of the complaint with prayer for rejection of the complaint with cost.

            Specific case of the O.P. is that the complainant had purchased the almirah on 01/11/2014 and filed a letter pad (document) dt.18/05/2014 before this Forum, so the said letter pad cannot be treated as  sale receipt or money receipt. The O.P. never issued any receipt or bill in favour of the complainant before the date of sale and no sale tax or vat number is mentioned on that document and that the complainant has failed to produce even the warranty or guarantee card.

             The O.P. also denied that the complainant ever purchased the said almirah from them.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1) Is the case/ application maintainable?

2) Is the complainant a consumer as per provision of the Consumer Protection act 1986?

3) Is O.P. guilty for  Unfair Trade Practice and for deficiency in service as alleged?

4) Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?  

DECISION WITH REASONS

               All four points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

              Seen and perused the petition of complaint, the Written Version and the documents filed by the parties. Also perused the Written Arguments filed by the parties. We have heard arguments of Ld. Lawyers of both the parties at a length in full.

               Now after due consideration of aforesaid and the arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, documents filed , and the written arguments we find that the complainant purchased an almirah from the O.P.(Decora Furniture) on 01/11/2014, for her personal use but after using it for merely seven days the lock of almirah was broken down. The complainant then intimated the matter to the O.P. to solve the matter verbally and over the telephone, but the O.P. didn’t take any action to solve the matter. The complainant also send a letter to the O.P. dated 31/12/2014 requesting immediate solution of the matter within 7 days, but the attitude of the O.P. also remained same. Hence complainant was compelled to lodge this complaint (case)against the O.P. on 17/02/2015. So we find that the case has been filed within the time limit and the O.P. also running/ carrying their business within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the claim of the complainant is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. So we find and hold that this case is well maintainable as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

                We also find that the complainant purchased the said almirah in question on 01/11/2014 from the O.P.(Decora Furniture) by documents which the complainant has submitted before this Forum at the time of filing this case and at the time of final hearing. This document (letter pad) filed by the complainant as sale receipt/money receipt is denied by the O.P. as because the said document cannot be treated as a sale receipt/money receipt as there is no sale tax or vat number on the said document. We find that the said document(letter/pad) was issued by the O.P. and this can be treated as just and proper. Because the O.P. himself given the said documents to the complainant while having the business deal with the complainant and it gets support from the statement of the O.P. in paragraph number 6 ofv Written Version wherein O.P. has stated that, “Everything is perishable, such a manner every product has a limited longevity and no product manufactured or sold with a warranty or guarantee for perennial period”. It is settled principle that no one can pour hot and cold water at the same time. So we are of clear opinion that the (document) letter pad which has been issued by the O.P.(Decora Furniture) to the complainant at the time of the booking of the said almirah in question and filed by the complainant at the time of final hearing of this case is an authenticated and proper document. It is the duty of the (seller) O.P. to provide proper sale receipt to its customer (complainant) after even sale of article, and it is also the duty of the seller(O.P.) to provide warranty or guarantee card to the customer(complainant).

            Furthermore the O.P. has no where in his written version has stated that he has previous enmity/ problem with the complainant. So why the complainant, who is an woman shall lodge false complaint against the O.P. if she was not deprived and harassed by the O.P.? The complainant purchased the almirah in question with expectation to use the said almirah peacefully atleast for some years, but the lock of the almirah was broken down and the side panels came out within 7 days of delivery of the almirah as alleged and the O.P. took no step to meet up the said legitable grievance of the complainant despite her repeated requests and remainders. Such in-action/activities on the part of the O.P. certainly comes within the purview of Unfair Trade Practice as well as deficiency in service. Therefore we are of clear opinion that the O.P. is guilty for Unfair Trade Practice and /or deficiency in service as alleged.

               It is to be mentioned here that, at the time of hearing of this case, it was submitted by the side of the complainant that only the lock of the almirah had broken down and some panels of that almirah were coming off. In our considered opinion if that broken lock is replaced by new one and the side panels are repaired then the grievance of the complainant can be fulfilled.

                In the above circumstances, we find and hold that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs specified below.

                All points are disposed of accordingly.

                  In the result the case / application succeeds.

                  Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

          that the case/ application is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.500/- to be paid by the O.P. to the complainant. The O.P. is hereby directed to replace the broken lock by a new one of the said almirah purchased by the complainant, and also to repair the side panels of that almirah at his own cost within 30 days from the date here off, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to realize the cost and to compel the O.P. to comply the said direction by putting this order into execution in accordance with law.

                   Let  plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost forthwith as per Rule 5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules,1987.