District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.305/2023.

 Date of Institution: 03.05.2023.

Date of Order: 28.07.2023.

Manish Gupta S/o Shri V.K.Gupta aged 40 years R/o First Floor , H.No. C-2/5, Sector-85, BTPTP. Parklands, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Evok Furniture Store by Hindware, Shop NO. FF 19 to 29, Ist floor, Crown Interiorz Mall, N.H.2, Mathura Road, Subash Nagar, Sector-35, Faridabad – 121003.

2.                Hindware Home Retail Pvt. Ltd., 68, Echelon Institutional Area, Sector-32, Gurugram-122001.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Complainant in person with Shri R.K.Anand Advocate.

                             Opposite party No.1 (proforma party) V/o dated 08.06.2023.

                             Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 17.7.2023.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant had purchased from the store of opposite party No.1 at Faridabad vide invoice NO. CI 9207203784 dated 06.09.2022 for Rs.2,42,500/- which was delivered in Mid-October after various requests and personal visits.  One of the product form the invoice Faranklin 3 STR Sofa FB Beige and two set of Franklin 1-STR Sofa FB Beige for Rs.1,57,450/- was supplied at the residence of the complainant.  After the use of 3 months the sofa has developed lint all over and the foam used in the sofa had got destroyed which was duly informed at the store in last week of December to the store Manager Awdesh Kumar who plainly refused to entertain, the  complaint as the furniture was sold by the Manager preceding him.  Despite the mail to the service head and business head there was no-respie, despite the fact the furniture sold had one year warranty.  The delay to respond to the redrssal of the complaint was malafide to somehow to cross the warranty period.  The condition of the sofa was so pathetic that it looks like a 15 years old and prima facie had manufacturing defect.  To the utter surprise despite the mail to the service head of the opposite party No.2, there was no reply to the issue raised by the complainant had had left the complaint with no other option but to pursue the matter through Hon’ble Forum hence this complaint. The complainant sent legal notice  dated 20.02.2023 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund the cost  the sofa amounting to Rs.1,57,450/- as per the invoice alongwith interest @ 12% from the  date of lodging of complaint and cost for harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                As per order dated 08.06.2023, the complainant has suffered a statement that he wants to make Opposite party No.1 performa party as it was store fully owned and operated by opposite party No.2.

3.                Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the present complaint was related to product i.e. Two set of Franklin 1-STR Sofa FB Beige for Rs.1,57,540/- which was purchased by the complainant dated 06.09.2022 vide invoice No. CI 9207203784 from opposite party No.1 but the complainant deliberately did not provide any invoice or any kind of evidence for the same, thus, whether the complainant was really a “consumer” as defined the act was questionable and hence the authenticity of such purchase was also in question and opposite party No..2 reserves its right to reply the same as and when provided by complainant..  The present complaint was nothing and just a restatement of a legal notice earlier sent by the complainant to opposite party No.2 vide legal notice dated 20.02.2023, to which opposite party No.2 sent a reply dated 02.03.2023 and agreed to repair the product in question, therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of opposite party No.2 as it had offered repair of the product in question and the same prevails now as well, to which the complainant denied and filed this frivolous  and false complaint just to waste the precious time of this Hon’ble Court, hence no cause of action arises on opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                  Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. It was already 3.50p.m.  Hence, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.07.2023.  

5.                The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.

6                  We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.

7.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties –Evok Furniture Store by Hindware  with the prayer to refund the cost  the sofa amounting to Rs.1,57,450/- as per the invoice alongwith interest @ 12% from the  date of lodging of complaint and cost for harassment and litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case, the complainant  has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Manish Gupta, Ex.C-1 -  Invoice, Ex.C-2 – email dated Feb.1,2023, Ex.C-3 – legal notice.

 8.               There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party No.2 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite part No.2 has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party No.2.

9.                Opposite party No.2 is directed to deduct the 10% as administrative  charges  from the  paid amount and pay the remaining amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  The complainant is also  directed to hand over the old sofa in

question to the opposite party No.2 after receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  28.07.2023                                                (Amit Arora)

                                                                                            President

                         District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                                  (Mukesh Sharma)

                       Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                                 (Indira Bhadana)

                       Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                Redressal Commission, Faridabad.