DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.590 of 12-12-2011

Decided on 07-03-2012

Lakha Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh, aged about 47 years, Resident of Q.No.4, ORS, Central Jail, Bathinda. .......Complainant

Versus

Dubai Furniture Maker, Grain Market Road, Near Pul, Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner. ......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh. Surinder Thakur, counsel for the complainant

For Opposite parties: Sh. Daljit Singh, opposite party in person

ORDER

Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant along with his friend approached the opposite party in the first week of June, 2010 for purchase of one Bed. The complainant requested the opposite party to prepare a bed with water proof ply and by using good quality of material. After making the calculations, the opposite party told the complainant that it will cost of Rs.9,500/-, the complainant agreed to pay the said amount to the opposite party. Accordingly, the opposite party asked the complainant to take the delivery of bed on 06.06.2010. On 06.06.2010, the complainant along with one Jasvir Singh visited the shop of the opposite party and it gave delivery of bed to the complainant. The complainant paid the total amount of Rs.9,500/- to the complainant on the same day. The complainant has alleged that after purchasing the said Bed, he started using the same but it was found to be defective in various ways as the said Bed is not made of water proof ply as assured by the opposite party rather the same is made of Board and the material used in the same, is also of poor and cheap quality as the Board used in the Bed has been totally damaged and the support provided by the opposite party under the said bed, has also been broken due to the substandard quality of the material. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested it that the said bed sold to him, has already been damaged and requested the opposite party to replace the same with new one made of water proof ply but the opposite party has been putting the matter on one or the other pretext. The complainant has also got issued a legal notice dated 26.08.2011 upon the opposite party but the opposite party did not give any reply to the said legal notice. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to replace the said defective bed with new one, made of water proof ply or to refund the price of the bed along with cost and compensation.

2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum, has filed its written statement and pleaded that the complainant who is an Police employee, has purchased one Double Bed for a sum of Rs.8,000/- from the opposite party for about 2 years back. The complainant-Lakha Singh paid Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party and the remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- has been paid to the opposite party in installments. Due to some minor defects in the bed in question, the complainant got repaired the bed for two times from the opposite party. On this, the opposite party was upset and decided not to give the delivery of the bed to the complainant. The opposite party has further pleaded that the complainant has paid Rs.500/- in advance to the opposite party. The opposite party was paying Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.500/- which has been received by the opposite party from the complainant in advance and told the complainant that he did not want to sell the said bed to him but the complainant did not agree. He took the delivery from the opposite party. The opposite party has further pleaded that after taking the delivery of the said bed, the complainant had called the opposite party in his house and got repaired the said bed from the opposite party after every six months. Thereafter, after lapse of 1-1/2 year, the complainant visited the opposite party and asked it to take back the said bed from the complainant. On this, the opposite party refused to do so. After some days, the complainant again visited the shop of the opposite party and asked it that he wanted to sell the said bed to some one and intentionally demanded the bill of the said bed for a sum of Rs.9,500/- instead of Rs.8,000/- and thereafter, after getting the bill, has filed the present complaint before this Forum, just to harass the opposite party.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly, the bed in question had been purchased by the complainant from the opposite party.

6. The disputed facts between the parties are that the complainant asked the opposite party to make a Bed with water proof ply and by using good quality of material. The opposite party quoted the cost of the said bed for Rs.9,500/- which the complainant has agreed to pay. He was asked by the opposite party to take delivery of the bed on 06.06.2010. The complainant visited the shop of the opposite party with Jasvir Singh and took delivery of the bed.

7. The complainant has submitted that when he started using the said bed. He found many defects in it as the said bed was not made with water proof ply as assured by the opposite party, a poor and cheap quality of Board and material used in it and the bed has totally damaged and the support provided by the opposite party under the said bed, has also been broken due to the substandard quality of the material. The complainant complained about the defects in the said bed to the opposite party and asked it to replace the same with new one, made of water proof ply but the opposite party had not paid any heed to the requests of the complainant. He had also got sent a legal notice dated 26.08.2011 to the opposite party but no reply was sent to the said notice by the opposite party.

8. On the other hand, the opposite party has submitted that the complainant had purchased the bed in question about 2 years back. The complainant paid Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party and the remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- was paid in installments. Due to some minor defects in the bed in question, the complainant got repaired the same for two times from the opposite party. The complainant had paid Rs.500/- in advance to the opposite party but the opposite party was paying Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.500/- which has been received by the opposite party in advance and told the complainant that it did not want to sell the said bed to him as he has got it twice repaired before taking delivery of the said bed but the complainant did not agree. After taking delivery of the bed in question, the complainant called the opposite party in his house and got repaired the said bed after expiry of six months. Thereafter, after lapse of 1-1/2 year, he visited the shop of the opposite party and asked it to take back bed but the opposite party refused to do that. After some days, the complainant again visited the shop of the opposite party and told that he wanted to sell the said bed to some one and demanded the bill for Rs.9,500/- instead of Rs.8,000/- and thereafter, after getting the bill, he has filed the present complaint.

9. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant had purchased the said bed vide bill No.210 dated 06.06.2010. Thereafter, after using the said bed for 1-1/2 years, he asked the opposite party to take it back.

10. The complainant has alleged that instead of using the water proof ply, the opposite party has used Board for making the bed which was never asked by the complainant to use but the complainant has not placed on file any evidence regarding the use of Board instead of Ply as no photographs, any other such document or any expert report of any other manufacturer/carpenter (i.e. expert in the field of making beds).

11. In the complaint as well as in the legal notice, the complainant has submitted that the agreed price of the bed in question was of Rs.9,500/-, for this he has placed on file Ex.C-2 i.e. bill of the bed in question dated 06.06.2010.

12. The opposite party has submitted that the complainant intentionally has taken the above said bill after 1-1/2 years of the purchase of the said bed on the pretext that he wanted to sell the said bed to some one else. The opposite party itself admitted that there were few minor defects in the said bed before delivering of the said bed which were repaired by it and after taking delivery, the complainant called the opposite party to his house for repair of some other minor defects which were also removed by the opposite party.

13. The opposite party has further submitted that he had sold the said bed for Rs.8,000/- and has taken Rs.5,000/- in advance but on seeing the conduct of the complainant, the opposite party before handling over the delivery of the said bed, asked the complainant to take double amount i.e. Rs.1,000/- (instead of Rs.500/- that he had paid as advance) and requested him that it does not want to sell the said bed to him. Meaning thereby, the dispute had arisen at the initial stage only i.e. before taking delivery of the said bed. According to the opposite party, the complainant had paid Rs.5,000/- and thereafter, the remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- was paid in installments.

14. The opposite party has placed on file the affidavits of Rajan Singh and his own affidavit Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 respectively in which it has deposed that in the first week of June, 2010, the complainant had approached the opposite party for purchase of the bed, the opposite party showed a bed which had already prepared with Board. The complainant liked it and agreed price was of Rs.9,500/-. The delivery of the said bed was given to the complainant on 06.06.2010. At the time of delivery, the opposite party has not given any assurance to the complainant that the bed is made with water proof ply and no guarantee was given to him for damage of the bed. The complainant has approached to the shop of the opposite party for replacing the bed but has never shown any defect to the said bed. The complainant has not produced any expert evidence on file or any photographs that can show the defect in the bed. Moreover, there is no evidence on the file that can prove that the said bed was damaged and needs replacement.

15. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '

Pronounced in open Forum

07-03-2012

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member