Tripura

StateCommission

A/30/2016

Sri. Mintu lal Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Manik Saha - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Subhajit. Paul, Mr. Koushik. Datta

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/30/2016

 

 

 

 

1. Sri Mintu Lal Saha,

Prop. of Nabin Furniture,

Joynagar (Near J.P.C. Club),

Battala, P.S. West Agartala,

Dist. West Tripura,

                                                  ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant/Opposite Party.

                                                           

 

                   Vs

 

 

1. Dr. Manik Saha,

S/o Lt. Makhan Lal Saha,

Resident of Masjid Road, Agartala,

P.S. East Agartala,

Dist. West Tripura, Pin-799001.

                                                            ….    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Petitioner.

 

 

 

 

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE U.B. Saha,

PRESIDENT,

STATE COMMISSION

 

MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

MR.NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant               :         Mr. Koushik Datta, Adv. & Mr. Subhajit Paul, Adv.

For the Respondent           :         Mr. Prabal Kr. Ghosh, Adv.

 

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment:         27.09.2016. 

 

J U D G M E N T (O R A L)

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the opposite party, Sri Mintu Lal Saha, Proprietor of Nabin Furniture, Joynagar, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as opposite party) under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Judgment dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No.CC-63/2015 whereby the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint of the petitioner filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and directed the opposite party, the opposite party herein, to replace the Bolvia bed by a new one in the house of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) and also pay Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner in addition as compensation. In case of failing to replace the Bolvia bed, the opposite party has to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner  and if the same is not paid within two months, then it will carry interest @9% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. K. Datta, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite party. None appears for the petitioner. Even on earlier occasion also, none is found present for the petitioner. Thus, the appeal is taken up for hearing in absence of the petitioner.
3. (i) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner, Dr. Manik Lal Saha had purchased one Bolvia bed of Zuari from the firm of the opposite party, but at the time of fitting and fixing, it is found that the leg portion of the said bed was broken. It is also contended by the petitioner that at the time of purchase, no cash memo was given to him by the opposite party. Subsequently, on demand, one cash memo was provided to him, but the price of the product was written as Rs.20,610/-. When the petitioner raised objection then another cash memo was issued and in the said cash memo, price of the product was mentioned as Rs.23,014/- which was mismatched with the amount given by him. The petitioner requested the opposite party to repair the Bolvia bed, but his request was turned down without any valid reason.

(ii)      Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the opposite party on 29.04.2015 which the opposite party had refused to receive. Being aggrieved by the action of the opposite party, the petitioner preferred the complaint case against the opposite party in respect of deficiency in service before the Ld. District Forum which was registered as Case No.CC-63/2015.

4. The opposite party being the proprietor of Nabin Furniture appeared before the Ld. District Forum and filed his written statement. In the written statement, the opposite party contended that he had issued two cash memos for two different Bolvia bed purchased by the petitioner.
5. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the engaged staff of him delivered the said goods in the house of the petitioner and petitioner suddenly visited the shop premises of the opposite party in the month of April, 2015 and informed the opposite party regarding the damages of the Bolvia bed. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the petitioner requested him for repairing the broken part of the Bolvia bed.
6. In support of the contention of the petitioner, he examined himself as a witness and also produced two numbers of original invoice cash memos, original chalan, letter, and photocopy of course of deference of Bolvia bed which are also exhibited as exhibit 1 series.
7. The opposite party also examined himself and denied the contention of the petitioner. The District Forum after considering the pleadings and evidence on record taken up the following points for decision.

1. Whether a defective khat was supplied to the petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service and also for replacement?    

8. The Ld. District Forum after considering the evidences on record has held that the product has a warranty and in case of such defect it is subject to repairing and if not possible, replacement is required. It is also mentioned by the Ld. Forum that the question of mishandling does not come at all when the fixing of Bolvia bed not proved by the opposite party on convincing evidence. Not only that the opposite party issued three types of vouchers showing the price of Bolvia bed. Actual price list and other papers of Bolvia bed was not supplied and ultimately held that the opposite party being the seller did not properly serve at the time of sale of product in question and ultimately decided the complaint case in favour of the petitioner as it was establish from the evidence that the defective Bolvia bed was supplied by the opposite party to the petitioner and directed the opposite party, the opposite party herein to replace the Bolvia bed by a new one after taking back the defective bed, supply the warranty card, fix the new bed in the house of the petitioner to his satisfaction and also pay Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner in addition. In case of failure to replace the Bolvia bed, the opposite party has to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner and the same shall be paid within two months. In case of failing, the aforesaid amount will carry interest @9% per annum.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the opposite party has preferred the present appeal.
10.  The Ld. Counsel for the opposite party submits that the product in question was not manufactured by the opposite party, rather the same was manufactured by Aditya Birla Group. The opposite party further contended that two cash memos were issued for two transactions not for one Bolvia bed.
11. We have gone through the evidences and the witnesses on record and also perused the findings of the Ld. District Forum. From the evidence of opposite party, it appears that he did not say anything about the warranty of the product and also did not produce any evidence to prove the fact that the product was properly fixed by his staff in the house of the petitioner. To prove his contention, he could have examined his staff who informed him that the Bolvia bed was delivered in good condition. It also appears from the evidence of the opposite party that he sent his engaged labourer for inspection of the Bolvia bed for causing repair of the bed. If the Bolvia bed was supplied in good condition then why the opposite party sent his engaged labourer for repairing the bed. The aforesaid facts were also considered by the Ld. District Forum while give its findings. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion, that the Ld. District Forum did not commit any wrong while coming to its conclusion regarding the deficiency of service of the opposite party. The impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by us in exercise of our appellate powers. Particularly, when the District Forum only directed the opposite party to replace the Bolvia bed supplied to the petitioner, furnishing the warranty card of the new bed and also to pay Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner in addition as compensation. In case of his failure to replace the Bolvia bed, he will have to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner within the period of two months. In case of failure, it will carry interest @9% per annum.  
12. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal filed by the opposite party is devoid of substance and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
14. Send back the records to the Ld. District Forum immediately for doing the needful.       

         

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura