Date of filing : 25.07.2019                     

Date of Judgment : 09.11.2021

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

            This complaint is filed by the complainant namely Samrat Mallick under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party namely Fedora Furnitures Pvt. Ltd. (referred as O.P hereinafter) ,alleging deficiency in service on its part.

            Case of the complainant ,in short is that he purchased a Diwan Bed with Hydraulic system on 20.01.2018 from the O.P at a cost of Rs.22,500/-. Said bed was purchased by the complainant for the use of his father who is suffering from Parkinson disease. But on delivery of the Diwan Bed, complainant found that the bed was not fitted with hydraulic system. Complainant thereafter learnt on enquiring from the showroom that O.P company has charged extra sum of Rs.5000/- over the MRP for fitting the Hydraulic jack locally. On 3.2.2018 a local fitter was sent b y the company for assembling the Hydraulic jack ,but due to inexperienced hand and grave negligence, the fitter broke the inner part of the bed making it unsuitable for use. Complainant complained before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Kolkata and to the Officer-in-Charge. Due to the intervention of the police, bed was replaced by the company but without installation of Hydraulic jack. O.P company also failed to return the extra sum worth Rs.5000/-. Thus present complaint is filed for directing the O.P to take back Diwan bed and to return the money of Rs.22,500/- together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Complainant has filed the documents such as quotation dated 20.01.2018, complaint made before Asstt. Director, CA & FBP, Asstt. Director-in-Charge of Mediation Cell , Consumer Affairs Dept and notice sent to the O.P through E.mail.

            O.P did not take any step inspite of service of notice and thus case has been heard exparte.

            So, the only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed ?

   Decision with reasons

            Complainant in support of his claim has filed the quotation /bill dated 20.1.2018 wherefrom it appears that it is specifically mentioned that complainant purchased Diwan Bed with Hydraulic system. The cost of the bed was Rs.22,500/-. According to the complainant when Diwan bed was delivered, he found hydraulic system was not fitted. The man sent by the O.P to fit the hydraulic system broke the lower part of the bed while fitting and the Diwan bed became unusable. These claims of the complainant is substantiated from the letter written by him to Asstt. Director, CA & FBP on 04.02.2018 as well as before the Grievance Cell, Consumer Affairs Deptt. and also the notice sent to the O.P through mail on 04.02.2018. In all these documents, complainant has specifically stated that the man who was sent by the company broke the lower part of the bed and when it was replaced on the intervention of the police, the bed did not have the hydraulic  system as agreed in the quotation. So, the complainant is entitled to the Diwan bed with hydraulic system as agreed between the parties especially when before this commission, no contrary material is forthcoming to counter or rebut the claim of the complainant.  However, it may be pertinent to point out that even though complainant has prayed for refund of total sum of Rs.22,500/- but the quotation or bill dated 20.01.2018 indicates that the diwan bed was purchased on payment of EMI of Rs.22,500/- ( 8 months ). Cash payment of Rs.5000/- only was made. It is not clear whether these EMIs have been paid. So, in such a situation we find it would be appropriate to direct the O.P to replace the bed. So far as prayer of the complainant for compensation, in the given facts and situation of this case, we find no justification to pass any order as to compensation.

Hence,

            ORDERED

That CC/369/2019 is allowed exparte. O.P is directed to replace the diwan bed supplied to the complainant with the new diwan bed with Hydraulic system within two months from this date. O.P is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within the aforesaid period of two months.