Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

79/2008

A.Shamsath and another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hi-Tech Furnitures and another - Opp.Party(s)

A.Bobblie

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

                                                                         

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 18.02.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 22.02.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

          DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                                CC. NO.79 /2008

THURSDAY THE 22^ND  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

                                              

1.  A. Shamshath

W/o. Farook Hussain,

2. Farook Hussain,

Both are residing at

No.11/17, 2^nd Street,

Bhashiyam Nagar,

Chrompet, Chennai 600 044.                                     .. Complainant

 

                                      ..Vs..

1. The Manager,

Hi-Tech Furnitures,

87,  Goundiya Mutt Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai 600 014.

 

2. The Manager,

Sumi Pack Furnitures (Pvt) Limited,

49/22, Gowdiya Mutt Road,

Near S.V.M. Higher Secondary School,

Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.                           ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for complainants      :  M/s. L.Mouli  

Counsel for opposite party-1  :  M/s. N.Noor Ahmed Khan

Counsel for opposite party-2  :  Exparte.

    

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to  refund a sum of Rs.18000/- towards cost of sofa set and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation  for  mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainants submit that they purchased  Model 203 Sofa set  (3+1+1+1) Teak Wood finish on payment of Rs.18000/- from the opposite party on 6.4.2006.   Further the complainants state that the said Sofa set delivered by the opposite party is not the one chosen by her, but she accepted the said sofa set believing the words of the opposite parties that all the furniture that they are dealing are imported furniture.  Further the complainants state that within four months of the use of the Sofa set there was a crack immediately it was informed to the opposite party and after long struggle the opposite parties agreed to change the broken piece.   Thereafter once again the sofa set developed crack was reported to the opposite party over phone. But the opposite party did not care to response.    Hence the complainants sent a letter dated 25.6.2007 to the 1^st opposite party;  since there was no response.   Therefore the complainant issued legal notice dated 14.12.2007 which was returned as “Unclaimed”.  Thereafter repeated requests were made for exchange of Sofa set or to refund of the amount.   Since the opposite parties has not come forward to rectify the defects namely cracks in the Sofa or exchange of Sofa or to pay cost of the Sofa.   Hence the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1st opposite party is as follows:

The  1^st opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The 1^st opposite part state that the complainant purchased the Sofa set model No.203 on 6.4.2006 and the opposite party also supplied the said sofa in good condition and later on the complainants stated that the said sofa set has occupied the larger portion of their living space area and therefore they wanted to change the sofa set to a smaller size which request the opposite party could not be acceded to, since the said sofa set was made on order and it would be difficult to sell the same to other parties.   After few months they wanted to go for exchanging the said sofa set to smaller size and the opposite party given their price for the said sofa set which offer was not accepted by the complainant.   The said sofa set has developed cracks and the complainant wanted to change the sofa set.   Even though the sofa set was in good condition in order to have good rapport with the consumer and to satisfy them they undertook to exchange the said sofa set and replaced it with a new one to the satisfaction of the consumer.   In spite of exchange of the said sofa set the complainant started giving trouble to the opposite party on flimsy grounds and threatened to initiate proceedings in various ways.   It is absolutely false to state that the said sofa set began to develop crack and several complaints were made.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.  Inspite of service of notice the opposite party-2 called absent and set exparte.

4.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party filed and no document marked on the side of the 1^st  opposite party.

5.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards cost of the sofa set as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for ?

6.  POINTS 1 & 2 :

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   Admittedly the complainant purchased  Model 203 Sofa set  (3+1+1+1) Teak Wood finish sofa set on payment of Rs.18000/- from the opposite party with imported furniture as per Ex.A1.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the Sofa set delivered by the opposite party is not chosen by the complainant; is not acceptable because if the sofa set delivered is not order in consonance with the  complainants  ought to have  been returned on the other hand for what reason  received and accepted the Sofa set not explained.   Further the contention of the complainants is that within four months of the use of the Sofa set there was a crack; immediately it was informed to the opposite party and after long struggle the opposite parties agreed to change the broken piece.   Thereafter once again the sofa set developed crack was reported to the opposite party over phone. But the opposite party did not care to response.    Hence the complainants sent a letter dated 25.6.2007 to the 1^st opposite party as per Ex.A2.   Since there was no response, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated 14.12.2007 which was returned as “Unclaimed”.  In letters  Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 the complainants specifically requested for exchange of Sofa set or to refund of the amount.   Since the opposite parties has not come forward to rectify the defects namely cracks in the Sofa or exchange of Sofa or to pay the cost of the Sofa   the complainants was constrained to file this case.  On a careful perusal of the entire records the complainant filed Ex.A4 copy of the photo to prove the crack  which is apparent to the naked eye.   

7.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that admittedly the complainants  purchased  the Sofa set model No.203 from the 1^st opposite party.  Since the sofa set is bigger size and occupied the larger portion of their living space area,  the complainant wanted to change the sofa set to a smaller size for which the opposite party could not accepted because  the sofa set is  an imported one cannot be sold to other 3^rd parties but the opposite party has not produced any interest for such small size sofa.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that after few months  the complainant wanted to go for exchange the said sofa to a smaller size and the opposite party had given their price for the said sofa set which offer was not accepted by the complainant.   Thereafter the complainant made allegation that the Sofa set had developed cracks and wanted to change the Sofa set.   Even though the sofa set was in a good condition in order to have good rapport with the customer the opposite party under took to exchange the said piece of sofa set and replaced it with a new one to the satisfaction of the complainant.   Thereafter once again the complainant on the same allegation of development of cracks filed this case; after issuing notice with a sole intention to threaten and harass the opposite party.  The complainant  allegation of development of cracks after exchange piece of sofa is false and imaginary.  No iota of evidence produced before this forum also.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that  the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to rectify the defects of cracks if any in the sofa set within one month failing which to refund the cost of the sofa set of Rs.18000/- and also shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

        In the result the complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to rectify the defects of cracks if any in the sofa set within one month failing which to refund the cost of the sofa set Rs.18000/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand only) and also shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees  five thousand only)  for mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd  day of February 2018. 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 5.4.2006  - Copy of bills.

Ex.A2- 25.6.2007 - Copy of letter sent to the opp. party.

Ex.A3- 14.11.2007- Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4             - Copy of photos

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  .. Nil..

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.