Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/450/2019

Rajesh Jothi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Founder CEO, Royaloak Furniture India LLP, - Opp.Party(s)

01 Feb 2020

ORDER

Complaint Filed on:02.03.2019

Disposed On:01.02.2020

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

01^stDAY OF FEBRUARY2020

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM - PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

 

Complaint  No.450/2019

 

COMPLAINANT	Rajesh Jothi, Age 35 years, #52, 8th Main, 13th Cross, Virat Nagar, Bommanahalli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560068.     V/s
OPPOSITE PARTy	Founder – CEO, ROYALOAK FURNITURE INDIA LLP, No.5, 2nd Cross, Kammanahalli Main Road, St. Thomas Town Post, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560084. Advocate – Sri.C.NMahadeshwaran

                                       

O R D E R

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite party (herein after called as OP), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant prays to direct the OP to refund amount of Rs.5,990/- with interest from 15.10.2018 and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards irresponsible attitude.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

 

          Complainant submitted that he purchased shoe rack in OP shop through online on 15.10.2018 vide order No.ROY0010650.  Complainant made payment of Rs.5,990/- through online.  Complainant received the product to the delivery address (#2/27, Muthu Mari Amman Kovilst, Siva puram, Achampathu, Madurai).  Complainant sent emails to the customer care department of OP about the delay in deliver the product.  After 15 days complainant received a product in a packed condition and complainant advised to wait for a carpenter from Royal Oak India to assemble the shoe rack.

 

          Complainant further submitted that the carpenters came to assemble the product on 10.11.2018 and when they unpacked the product they noticed the item was in a damaged conditions (Base board & shoe rack bushes) and advised to report this incident to the customer care immediately.  Complainant took a photograph of the damaged items along with the carpenter and reported the customer care through phone immediately.  That on the basis of advice from the customer care complainant sent an mail to them with the photos of the damaged items as an attachment and requested them to refund the amount paid soon.

 

          Complainant further submitted that OP created a complaint No.CMS010312 and follow through emails to get the refund as early as possible.  But they promised over phone that they will arrange a reverse pickup on 17.12.2018.  But it was not happened and when complainant called the customer care they were not answered the complainant queries.  Even complainant sent emails to many other customer care officials to get the refund against the damaged product which complainant received.

[

          Complainant further submitted that on 03.12.2018 OP customer care called through phone and requested to send the bank details of complainant through mail to process the request.  Complainant send the bank details as requested.  But they did not update about the complainant refund even complainant sent lot of email communications.  Complainant tried to communicate them over phone and sent emails to refund the amount.  But they did not respond to any of the queries.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP due to the damaged product supplied.  Hence complainant approached this Forum.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, OP did appear before this Forum through counsel and filed version contending that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  OP is one of India’s leading and well reputed institutions involved in importing and trading/selling of all kinds of furniture throughout India and is into the business for the last 17 years.  OP has maintained high value in carrying on the business and maintained excellent track record in their business.

 

OP further submitted that various clients including Corporate, Government and Semi-Government Institutions as their customers and as stated above have maintained high value in the business.  OP has grown in their business by maintaining high standards and value and now at present 400 people were working in the establishment.  For the last 17 years OP has maintained good business track record and excellent business relationship with the customers.

 

OP further submitted that the complainant has booked and purchased the consignment directly from the outlets of the OP and the same was delivered to him in time.  OP has supplied the furniture which was selected by the complainant through online service.  OP delivered the same to the complainant.  OPs sent their Carpenter to assemble the furniture set that was supplied to complainant.  But however the same was not assembled for the reason that the product supplied had some damages which required to be replaced.  OP’s representative had informed the complainant to contact customer care service for a replacement of the damaged product to the new product.

 

OP further submitted that the complainant was not clear with his approach regarding refund of the amount or replacement of the product supplied to him.  OP got information that the complainant was looking for a product replacement rather than refund of his amount.  The OP on the information received from the complainant, placed the order with the manufacturer of the product and assured the complainant that the replacement of the product will be carried out within a short period of time.  However, due to the problem faced by the manufacture of the product, the OP could not supply the product in time.  Complainant was also kept dark with regard to refund of the amount due to the confusion created by the complainant.  The product supplied which is alleged to be damaged is still under the possession of the complainant till the date.

 

OP further submitted that at any point of time does not have any intention to cheat any of their customers.  Complainant also an important customer and would have honoured his requirement, but he has approached this Forum in hasty.  Further there are certain defects which are beyond the capacity of the OP to set-right.  OP has no malafide intention to deceive any of their customers.  OP will always give preference to their customers and under any circumstances the OP has no intention to do any injustice to their customers.  OP has inspite of promising the complainant for replacement of a new product or refund of the amount has approached this Forum.  If the complainant would have cleared his requirement ‘whether it is replacement or refund’ the OP would have honoured the same.  However approach of the complainant was not clear to the OP of his requirement.  Complainant has approached this Forum with untenable allegations.  OP is ready to supply the product required by the complainant subject to the condition that the complainant has withdraw this complaint and has to pay the addition cost of litigation.  Complainant has approached this Forum with frivolous allegations.  OP has assured to replace the damage product with fresh piece.  OP reserves their right to prosecute the complainant for initiating wrong proceeding against the OP.  Complainant approached the Forum after long delay.  Hence OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs. 

 

4. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and relied on Ex-A1 to Ex-A6 documents.  The OP had also filed affidavit evidence.  Arguments were heard.

 

5. Based on the above materials the following points arise for our consideration:

1) Whether the complainant has proved that   
              there is deficiency in service on
 thepart of OP?  If so, whether the
complainantentitledforthe relief sought for?

 

         2) What Order?

 

6. Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1:Partly in the affirmative

 

Point No.2: As per the order below

 

REASONS

 

7. Point No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the complainant purchased a shoe rack from OP on 15^th October 2018 by paying an amount of Rs.5,990/- through online.  The complainant sent lot of emails to the customer care department of OP about the delay in delivery of the product.  After 15 days the complainant received a product in packed condition.  This transaction clearly shows on seeing the document produced by the complainant marked as Ex-A1 to A3.

 

8. It is further case of complainant that, on 10.11.2018 the Carpenter came to assemble the product and when they unpacked the product they noticed the item was in a damaged conditions.  Immediately the complainant reported the same to the Customer Care of OP.  On the basis of advice from the Customer Care the complainant sent an email along with photos of the damaged items as an attachment and requested them to refund the amount.  After several email correspondence done by the complainant, the OP agreed to rectify the issues and refund the amount.  After that several times complainant has called up the customer care and to the office of the OP but none has responded till date.  Thereafter the complainant sent a e-mail to the OP on 27^th December 2018 calling upon to refund the amount failing which will approach consumer court but the OP not responded.  These are also clearly shows on seeing the documents produced by the complainant marked as Ex-A4 to A6.

 

9. The OP had earlier filed the version contending common defence that this complaint is frivolous, arbitrary and has been filed with a dishonest intention.  On the other hand the OP is agreed to replacement of a new product or refund of the amount in para no.14 of this version.

 

10. On careful scrutiny of the case of the complainant on the background of oral and documentary evidence, it is vivid and clear that the complainant who comes to Forum seeking relief has proved with clear and tangible material evidence that OP is negligent and there is deficiency of service on his part.  Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.5,990/- along with interest at 18% p.a, compensation of Rs.3,000/-, cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/-.  Complainant is directed to return the disputed shoe rack to the OP after receipt of the amount.  Accordingly we answered the point No.1 partly in the affirmative.

 

11. Point No.2: In the result, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1) The complaint filed by the complainantis allowed in part.

 

2) The OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.5,990/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a on the said amount from 15.10.2018 till the date of realization.

 

3) OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

 

4) Complainant is directed to return the disputed shoe rack to the OP after receipt of the above said amounts.

 

4) This order is to be complied by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

         

5) Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the01^stday of February 2020)

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R) MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K) PRESIDENT

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri.Rajesh Jothi

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant:

 

Ex-A1	Copy of order confirmation email copy dated 15th October 2018.
Ex-A2	Copy of payment receipt through CC Avenue email copy dated 15.10.2018.
Ex-A3	Copies of email regarding delay in product delivery dated 31.10.2018.
Ex-A4	Copies of email regarding the damaged product complaint to Royal Oak with photo proofs dated 10 November 2018.
Ex-A5	Copies of email regarding the bank account details for refund dated 03.12.2018.
Ex-A6	Copy of email dated 27.12.2018.

 

Witness examined on behalf of Opposite Party by way of affidavit:

Sri.Murugan, who being the Manager of OP Company.

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OP - Nil

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R) MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA R.K) PRESIDENT