BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 02^ND DAY OF JULY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This  complaint has been  filed under section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 to  direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages  and such other reliefs.

2.The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

The complainant  has purchased furniture from OP on 31.03.2019 for Rs.24,485.42ps and subsequently the complainant noticed huge amount of dust and borer infestation in the furniture. Accordingly, she has sent e-mail dt.24.02.2020 for rectification of the problem. The complainant also stated  pest fabricated to the other furniture. The complainant  was dissatisfied with service provided by the OP. on 21.03.2022 the complainant informed the OP that the treatment given to the two  chairs was inadequate and asked for replacement.

3. Even though OP admitted  on 30.06.2020 for one chair infected and not two chairs. The OP also admitted the borer infested the door. Despite repeated requests, legal notice dt.04.08.2020, the OP fails to replace chairs and the act of the OP amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, this complaint.

4. After receipt of notice, the OP appears and files version. The OP admits purchase of furniture by the complainant. The OP diligently corrected the complainant’s issue and the quality control team inspected two chairs in the complainant’s residence, but there was only borer and infestation in one chair. The problem was attended. As per the clause of the warrant,  the products are covered by 24 months warranty against borer infestation.  The borer infestation was within warranty period. The OP with goodwill gesture offered to replace both chairs with any of the item of the complainant’s choice and equivalent value, but the complainant asked for replacement of both   chairs with same exact model or replace  both chairs and dining table. The OP declined the request of the complainant. As the request of the complainant was not permissible under warranty, but OP offered to replace both chairs as goodwill gesture with another item with equivalent value. The OP has also offered gift voucher as alternative solution.  The complaint is filed for unreasonable amount. There is not deficiency of service. The OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

5.      Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 07 documents.

6.     The affidavit evidence of Senior manager of the OP has been filed and 03 documents are marked. No arguments is advanced by both sides. Perused records.

7. The following points arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

8. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Affirmative.

      Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.   

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

9. Point Nos.1 and 2:.It is admitted by the complainant in the complaint  as well as in the affidavit evidence that she has purchased furniture worth of  Rs.24,485.42ps. Whereas exhibit P-1indicates that invoice value  was Rs.29,385/-, but the complainant refers lesser amount in the complaint as well as in her affidavit evidence. Therefore, this evidence of the complainant  with regard to purchase from the OP worth of Rs.24,485/- is taken into consideration. Exhibit P2 is certificate under section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, Exhibit P-3 is undisputed document with regard to the warranty. It is admitted and proved that the original warranty period was 24 months and in case of defect within year warranty against such manufacturing defect is also provided. Exhibit P-4 is email dt.24.02.2020 was sent to the OP with photos of furniture. The notices were exchanged by email between the parties till 11.07.2020 and legal notice was also exchanged as per exhibit P5 & P6.

10. OP has admitted  in the version as well as  in the affidavit evidence  that in case the borer infestation within warranty period, the furniture  will be exchanged free of cost and even product is not available  the OP was ready to offer replacement of the product with another  product of same value or offer gift voucher of the equivalent value.

11. It is admitted and proved that after noticing borer infestation in furniture, the  complainant  had approached the OP. According to the OP, the treatment team visited the residence of the complainant, noticed borer infestation in one of the chair and problem with the door. But, OP resolved  the  problem in chair  nor refunded entire money to the complainant. The OP relies on 03 documents. Exhibit R1 is the resolution authorizing Manjunath Shetty to represent  OP. Exhibit R2 is certificate under section 65(B) of Evidence Act. Exhibit R3 is e-mail dt.04.07.2020 with enclosures. The OP has produced evidence of model chairs. The OP has not examined any one of their team member who visited the house of the complainant to resolve the problem.

12. We  carefully perused the affidavit evidence of representative of OP, who reiterated the facts pleaded in the version. In para-10 witness admits the borer infestation because of by boring insects,  they  present behind back of the trees, where they feed and lay eggs. In para-12 he admits that in case borer infections within warranty period the product will be exchanged free of cost and in case on non-availability of same product other product will be replaced with another product of same value or offer gift vouchers. He admits in cross examination that these furniture were under  cover of 24 months warranty and in case of problem with the furniture, furniture would be replaced or exchanged or offers gift vouchers of equivalent value will be provided to the customer. He  also admits that they agreed to  replace two chairs with goodwill gesture and borer infestation was occurred. He denied the borer infestation in furniture supplied by OP is extended to other furniture. The borer infestation occurred to the part of the furniture supplied by the OP has been proved, but the complainant has not produced any material  or document  to show that borer infestation is also extended to other furniture of the complainant.

13. As per warranty conditions, the complainant is either entitled to replacement of the similar furniture of the same value or gift voucher. According to the complainant she has paid Rs.24,485/- to the OP, but she claims Rs.1,00,000/- as damages without any basis. As per warranty condition the complainant is entitled to refund of price of furniture Rs.24,485/-.  It is true that some inconvenience has been caused to the complainant for that complainant is entitled damages/compensation from the OP. From the date of purchase the complainant has been using the furniture, it is not the  case of the complainant that she has kept all the furniture idle  without using. Looking to the price of the furniture the quantum of compensation is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. Complainant simply seeks Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the OP without showing any inclines   to return the furniture. The complainant is not entitled for compensation of huge amount by retaining furniture. The complainant engaged service of an advocate and she has not paid any court fee. Therefore,  cost of litigation is quantifies at Rs.5,000/-.

14. Point no.3:- In view of the discussions referred above, the complaint requires to be allowed in part. The OP shall refund Rs.24,485/-, pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation, the complainant shall return all the furniture purchased under invoice  to the OP.,  we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP shall refund Rs.24,485/- with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation  to the complainant.
3. The complainant shall return the furniture to the OP.
4.  Both parties shall comply this order within 45 days.
5. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 2^nd  day of July, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :