16.12.2014.

MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2013 passed by Ld. District Forum, North 24 Pgs. in Complaint Case being No. 454 of 2012 allowing the same in part ex parte against the O.P. with cost of Rs.5,000/-, directing the O.P. to repair the items or to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which a penalty @ Rs.200/- per day would be charged as damage for each day’s delay, for disobeyance of Forum’s order and if that be collected the same would be deposited with the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the Ld. District Forum was not justifiable enough in passing award of compensation of Rs.5,000/- whereas the price of the product was Rs.36,254/-.

The case of the Complainant (Appellant herein) in brief, is that on 07.06.2010 she received a dining table and six dining chairs manufactured by the O.P. (Respondent herein).  As soon as the delivery men left her home after delivering the said table and chairs, she noticed that there were some defects in the table and the chairs.  She promptly intimated the same to the O.P. about the defects and the O.P. sent its technician to her home who after inspection replaced the defective table and chairs.  But even after the said replacement she found that the replaced items also developed defects.  She again informed the same to the customer care of the O.P. but the O.P. remained silent over it.  Hence, the Complainant filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum praying for direction upon the O.P. to refund the consideration amount and to take back the defective items and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation.

The O.P. did not turn up and, hence, the case was heard ex-parte.

In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Complainant has purchased the dining set by paying a hefty amount of Rs.36,234/-, but since delivery of the said goods she found that the table and chairs both were defective.  However, receiving the complaint through the customer care the Respondent replaced the defective items but that too were defective.  Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has specifically submitted that the Appellant does not like to keep the defective items in her home and want to get refund of the consideration amount from the Respondent.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the Respondent replaced the chair and table within 15 days from the date of receiving complaint from the Appellant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondent has deficiency in providing service to the Appellant.  Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has further submitted that the Appellant failed to discharge onus since she failed to prove that the said items were of inferior quality.

Having heard submissions made by both sides and on perusal of record it appears that the Appellant received the dining set on 07.06.2010.  The Appellant stated that she intimated about the defect to the O.P. through customer care promptly since she discovered the defect as soon as the items were delivered.  The Respondent has submitted that they replaced the defective items within 15 days from receiving the complaint.  However, it appears that the second complaint regarding the defects with replaced items was made even after lapse of one year.  Further, there is no documentary proof regarding the defects for which the Appellant informed the Respondent for the second time.

In view of that, we are of opinion that Ld. District Forum was justified enough in holding that prayer for refund of consideration amount was not entertainable.

 In the result, the appeal fails.

Hence, ORDERED that the instant appeal is dismissed on contest without cost.  The impugned order is affirmed.