Date of filing: 23.05.2014.
Date of disposal: 10.12.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 10th day of December, 2014
C.C.No.121 of 2014
Between:
Kattamuri Naga Satish Babu, S/o Babu Rao, Hindu, AD – Mark, 1st Floor, Chamber Street, Beside Babai Hotel, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada – 3, Krishna District.
…..Complainant.
And
Devi Furniture Center, Rep: by its Proprietor M. Guravaiah, Hindu, D.No.27-12-6, Ali Baig Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada – 2.
.. … Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 26.11.2014, in the presence of Smt Sri Lakshmi, advocate for complainant; Sri G. Narasimha Rao, advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party directing him to pay Rs.21,000/- towards the cost of wooden double cot to complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and for other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant purchased a wooden double cot (6 x 5 size) fro the opposite party on 16-5-2013 for Rs.21,000/- and that the complainant paid Rs.5000/- and Rs.16,000/- to the opposite party and took delivery of same. But the complainant found that the said double cot was cracked on some particular places and the complainant approached the opposite party and made a complaint about damages. But the opposite party used to give evasive replies saying that they are not responsible for the same. The complainant in spite of repeated visits vexed with the attitude of opposite party and got issued a legal notice dt.22-4-2014. But the opposite party intentionally avoid to receive the said notice and got it returned. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party. The opposite party filed version denying the material allegations of the complaint and contended that the complainant never purchased wooden double cot from the opposite party on 16-5-2013 as alleged and as such the question of damage to cot does not arise. It is further contended that the complainant approached the opposite party on 16-5-2013 and obtained estimation for the purchase of wooden cot, but later did not turn up. It is further contended that he did not receive any notice from the complainant and there is no deficiency in service and finally prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the averments of complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. The opposite party filed affidavit, but no documents marked.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in supplying the defective wooden double cot to complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
Point No.1:
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), it is the case of complainant that he purchased the wooden double cot from the opposite party on 16-5-2013 under Ex.A1 for Rs.21,000/- and that he paid Rs.5,000/- and Rs.16,000/- to opposite party and took delivery of same. It is the further case of complainant that he found some crackers in the double cot and approached the opposite party to rectify the same, but of no use. The complainant got issued notice under Ex.A2, which was returned under Ex.A3. The complainant in support of his case that the double cot got damaged, filed photographs under Ex.A4, which includes the shop of opposite party. But in this regard, the contention of opposite party is that the complainant never purchased the double cot and on 16-5-2013 he obtained estimation only, but later did not turn up. Admittedly Ex.A1 is an Estimation only as contended by the opposite party. Further perusal of Ex.A1 discloses that there are two writings, one is in blue ink colour and the amounts are in black ink colour. Further there is no signature of opposite party in the bill. All these things strengthen the contention of the opposite party. But on 17-9-2014 peculiarly the opposite party appeared before this Forum and reported that the matter is going on for settlement talks and obtained nearly eight adjournments. Finally as the matter was reported not settled reserved for orders on 26.11.2014. If really the opposite party contention is true and correct, he ought not go for settlement talks with the complainant. But the opposite party himself reported before this Forum that the matter is going to be settled. As such this Forum has no option except to believe the contention of the complainant that there is a defect in the wooden double cot and non rectification of same would amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such the complainant is entitled for refund of amount of Rs.21,000/- besides costs.
Point No.2:
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand only) to the complainant besides costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) on handing over the doubt cot by the complainant. Time for compliance is one month. The other claims of complainant if any shall stands dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 10th day of December, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 16.05.2013 Original copy of estimation.
Ex.A2 22.04.2014 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A3 Returned registered cover.
Ex.A4 Photos.
On behalf of the opposite party:
PRESIDENT (FAC).
