Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/941/2017

Mr.Madan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hanana Furniture - Opp.Party(s)

Kreetam Law Associates

07 Sep 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 06.05.2017

                                                      Disposed on: 07.09.2018

 

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        

 

CC.No.941/2017

DATED THIS THE 7^th SEPTEMBER OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Madan Kumar Srinivasan, Aged about 33 years, P-1204 Block-P, Concorde Manhattans, Opposite Wipro Gate 16, Neeladri Nagar, Electronic City, Phase-1, Bangalore-560 100.   By.Adv. Kreetam Law Associates		The Manager, Hanana Furniture, # 13/6, Singasandra, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore-560 068.   By.Adv.P.R.Chitnis

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

1.       The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party directing to repay a sum of Rs.47,000/- with interest at 12%, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental harassment, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards costs so incurred towards the legal proceedings.

 

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that on 30.1.2016, he had enquired about Smartwood items in the opponent showroom and got the smartwood distributor contact details. On 7.2.2016, he placed order 3 smartwood items which include an executive office table set, dressing table, wooden cot + side table with 2 years damage and service warranty and on the same day mid night, it was delivered. The complainant submits that on 8.2.2016, he raised a complaint to Hanana furniture regarding the damages in the furniture so delivered. The office table was broken in the middle, the glass on the top had many scratches, loose fitting and printing issues with the dressing table and it was not properly fitted.  When the complainant raised a complaint to the OP then, he was told to contact the service distributor Mr.Saif who further told him to contact Mr.Sanjeev Thakur CEO of smartwood, regarding the complaint so raised him. After hearing about the incident, he apologized to the complainant and told that it was OP’s fault. He also promised the complainant to replace the damaged furniture within 2 weeks. After waiting for few days when no update came regarding the replacement of the damaged furniture on 27.2.2016 he called Sanjeev Thakur to know about the status of the complaint so raised by him. He told the complainant that the OP had cheated him regarding the payment so he did not send the goods to Bangalore. He again promised the complainant that the replacement of the damaged furniture will be done in sometime. The complainant has updated the conversation details to the Op who in turn told that they are themselves were waiting for the response from Sanjeev Thakur regarding the complaint so raised by him. After having conversation with the CEO of smartwood, the Op he had waited for 4 months for the replacement of the furniture but nothing of that sort happened but he keep receiving vague promises. The complainant states that in July he told the CEO of smartwood that he wanted the damaged furniture to be picked up and wanted refund of money. After hearing this CEO of smartwood tried to convince the complainant and when he failed in doing so he shared the contract details of Mr.Bhaskar who is the manager or smartwood in Bangalore. When the complainant got in touch with Bhaskar, he told the complainant that he will update him regarding the pickup and refund of money only after he will discuss the issue with Sanjeev Thakur. The complainant states that a discussion had took place between Sanjeev Thakur (CEO of Smartwoods), Mr.Saif (Distributor of Smartwood in Bangalore) and Mr.Bhaskar (Manager of smartwood in Bangalore) in between July-August 2016. After the discussion Sanjeev stopped receiving the calls from the complainant. The complainant states in between September 2016, he visited the OP’s showroom and explained the whole series of incident so happened, then manager consoled him stating that the will resolve his problem at the earliest. On 27.10.2016 Mr.Sanjeev Thakur, Mr.Saif and Mr.Bhaskar convinced him that they will be replacing 2 items out of 3 items i.e., dressing table and the office table and promised him to refund the money within 40 days. Initially they were about send the vehicle to pick up the furniture but they didn’t. So the complainant himself made own arrangement for transporting it in late night hours.  As  it was off business hours he only received a handwritten return slip from the OP stating the refund value of the items. He had waited for 40-45 days, but when he received no update from the OP, he reminded them again then the OP told that they have not received any return slip from Sanjeev Thakur CEO of Smartwood so they again asked for some more time. On 15.1.2017, he went to the OP’s showroom to know about the status of refund of money then the OP tried to drag the issue in the same manner, they did in the earlier instances but when they failed to do so they made the complainant talked with the owner of the Op showroom who further told him that the matter will be settled within 2 days. Accordingly, on 17.1.2017 complainant visited OP’s showroom for the refund of money which was promised to him yet again it didn’t happened. The complainant then visited the Parappana Police Station on 18.1.2017 to register the complaint against the OP. Hence, the complainant submits to allow the complaint.     

 

3.       After issuance of the notice, the Op did appear and filed the version by denying the contents of the complaint stating that the complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The OP further submits that it is running the business for the last several years and earned very good reputation among the business circle and only with an intention to defame the reputation of the OP, the complainant has come up with present complaint in active collusion of some inimical persons towards the OP in the business circle. The complainant at no point of time approached the Op with regard to the damage caused to the items purchased by the complainant. So the version of the complainant is self-serving theory to get redress his remedy by dubious methods. Further submits that at no point of time, the OP committed deficiency of service. Hence, OP is not liable to pay an amount of Rs.47,000/-  being cost of furniture and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment etc., Except bald denial, the OP has not put forth any of his additional comments. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.   

 

4. The Complainant to substantiate his case, filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents at Sl.No.Anx- A to D. The OP though did appear and filed version, did not choose to file the affidavit. The Complainant has filed their written arguments, but not the OP. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

           

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1) Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency in service

     on the part of the OP, if so, whether he is entitled for the

     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 final order for the following

REASONS

 

7. POINT NO.1:    We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version of the Opposite Party. The OP by way of filing the version only denied the allegations made by the complainant. The OP did not meticulously denied the contents of the complaint in respect of purchasing of the 3 smartwoods items which are executive office table set, dressing table, wooden cot + side table with 2 years damage and service warranty. As per the order dt.7.2.2016, the Ops delivered the said 3 items on the same day midnight. The purchase receipt is also issued by the Ops which is at document No.Annexure-A for an amount of Rs.47,000/-.

 

8.       The complainant noticed that executive office table set, dressing table found to be defective i.e.,  office table was broken in the middle, the glass on the top had many scratches, loose fitting and printing issues with the dressing table and it was not properly fitted.  This fact was informed to the OP, who assured for the replacement of the damaged furniture on 27.2.2016. Thereafter, there was no response. In this context, the complainant lodged a complaint before Parappana Police station. Inspite of it, the OP did not replace the executive office table set and dressing table. Then issued legal notice to the OP to which the OP has answered which can be seen ongoing through document produced by the OP at Sl.No.1 and 2 with list dt.6.2.2017. The purchase of the 3 items as stated is not specifically denied by the OP. The purchase receipt produced by the complainant is at Annexure-A for an amount of Rs.47,000/- which includes 6 x 6½ HDF Box Cot, HDF-side table, HDF-06-dressing table for an amount of Rs.47,000/- which has been duly received by the card. The executive office table set and dressing table were returned to the OP on 27.10.2016 which is at Annexure-B wherein the value is shown as Rs.47,000/-. Looking to the Annexure-A, the price of the box cot, dressing table and executive office table set is not independent shown. But in the Annexure-A on the back side, executive office table set cost is shown as Rs.30,000/- which we have taken into consideration and in the return slip, cost of the dressing table is shown as Rs.17000/- in all Rs.47,000/- The cost of the HDF box cot is not separately mentioned, for which, there is no any explanation by the Complainant and the OP. Hence out of Rs.47,000/- paid by the complainant, the cost of the cot is to be deductible. So we have to take executive office table set for Rs.30,000/- and cost of the dressing table at Rs.10,000/- which comes to Rs.40,000/-. It is the OP which has issued the return slip as per Annexure-B, on assuring to the Complainant that he will refund the value of the said executive office table set and dressing table cost, but he did not refund it. Further, the defect in the said 2 items was found within the warranty period. Hence, we find there is a deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  Considering the available materials on record, if the OP is directed to provide the similar executive office table set and dressing table without any defect by extending one year warranty or else to refund an amount of Rs.40,000/- being the cost of the executive office table set and dressing table, we hope ends of justice would meet sufficiently. The complainant has sought for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- being compensation. How he has put into great hardship and also the mental harassment, there is no any evidence. Hence, we declined to award this amount. Anyhow we fix cost of litigation at Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly, we answered point No.1 partly in the affirmative. 

 

9.       POINT NO.2: In the result, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to replace executive office table set and dressing table to the complainant by extending one year warranty, if not, to refund an amount of Rs.40,000/-. The claim of the complainant with regard to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment is hereby rejected.  Further, the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- being the cost of the litigation.

The Opposite Party is directed to comply this order within 6 weeks from the receipt of this Order. Failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to take proper steps as per law.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 7^th September 2018).

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)     PRESIDENT

 

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

 

Madan Kumar Srinivasan, who being complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Anx-A	Purchase bill of furniture dt.7.2.2016
Anx-B	Return slip of the furniture dt.27.10.2016
Anx-C	Police complaint report dt.18.1.2017
Anx-D	Legal notice dt.24.3.2017
Doc	Online tracking details of the acknowledgement of the legal notice

 

 

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OP   

 

Doc-1	Notice issued by the complainant
Doc-2	Reply notice issued the OP
Doc-3	Returned RPAD cover

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)       MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)    PRESIDENT