DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __412 _ OF ___2015
DATE OF FILING :_15.9.2015 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 26.4.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Palash Bhowmick, Gorh Khara, Langal Para, P.O Sonarpur, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-150.
O.P/O.Ps : Estillo Furniture, Shop no. 219, Metropolis Mall Highland Park, P.S Survey Park, Kolkata- 94 .
_________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Forums are flooded by multitude of cases, wherein some people actually cry for justice, while some others indulge in abuse of process of law in order to delay the administration of justice. The O.P, in the instant case , belongs to latter category as mentioned above. He made appearance in this case ,but deliberately avoided to file written statement and, therefore, the case was decided to be heard exparte against him on 27.4.2016. The O.P preferred a revision before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to set aside the aforesaid order of this Forum. It was also pleased to direct the O.P by its order dated 25.2.2019 passed in R.P no. 84 of 2016 to appear before this Forum on 25.3.2019 and to file written version along with payment of a cost of Rs.5000/-. But, the O.P did not appear on 25.3.2019. Still, for interest of justice, he was directed to file written version and also to pay cost on 18.04.2019. On 18.4.2019 also, he did not appear and thus the deck stands clear again for hearing the case exparte.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case, as it stands revealed in the amended version of the complaint, may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant purchased one L-Shaped Sofa at the cost of Rs.35000/- from the showroom of the O.P with a warranty of 5 years of free service given by the O.P. Within a few months the rexine of the Sofa peeled from stitches and the matter was brought to the notice of the O.P by the complainant. The man of the O.P also paid visit to the house of the complainant on 5.6.2015 to repair the defect. But he suggested that the repair of the defect is chargeable inspite of 5 years’ warranty of free service. Legal notice was served upon the O.P on 9.6.2015 ,asking the O.P to repair the Sofa free of cost. A reply was also given by the O.P to the aforesaid notice of the complainant on 17.6.2015 and thereby the O.P disclosed that the repair of the Sofa would be done only when the payment was made by the complainant. Now, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for refund of the amount paid to the O.P or to remove the defect free of cost and also for payment of compensation. Hence, the case.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant vide his petition dated 2.5.2016 , kept in the record.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
Complainant has filed a copy of the cash memo ,whereby he purchased the Sofa from the showroom of the O.P and this copy of the cash memo is marked as Annexure 1 to the complaint. The Annexure 1 makes it clear that the complainant purchased the Sofa from the shop of the O.P at the cost of Rs.35000/- on 18.10.2013. The annexure also establishes that the O.P gave 5 years’ warranty for free service and this is so noted on the annexure. The Sofa was purchased in the year 2013. The notice which is marked as annexure 2 to the complaint reveals that the notice was given to the O.P on 9.6.2015 i.e within two years of the purchase of the sofa and thereby the O.P was asked for repairment of the sofa. These documents go a long way to establish that the claim for repair of sofa was raised by the complainant within 2 years of the purchase of the sofa, whereas the purchase carried with it a warranty for 5 years’ of free service. This being so, the O.P is bound to render free service for the sofa within 5 years from the date of purchase.
It is in the evidence of the complainant that the man of the O.P came to the house of the complainant and demanded cost for repairment of the sofa. Demand of cost by the O.P for repair of sofa is a clear violation of the warranty given by the O.P and this violation on the part of the O.P is nothing but deficiency in service. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to get relief or reliefs which are provided as hereunder.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.P with a cost of Rs.15,000/- which also includes the cost of Rs.5000/- as awarded by the Hon’ble State Commission.
The O.P is directed to do necessary repairs to the Sofa of the complainant without having any cost from the complainant , within a month of this order, failing which he will have to refund entire cost price of the Sofa i.e Rs. 35000/- to the complainant with an interest @8% p.a till full realization thereof.
That apart, the O.P will also have to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony sustained by the complainant, within a month of this order ,failing which, the compensation amount and the cost amount will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to deliver a copy of the judgment free of cost to the parties concerned.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
