Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/417/2006

M.Muneeshwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Home Life Furniture Company, - Opp.Party(s)

E.Dhayanantham

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   24.07.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   13.11.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (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

C.C.NO.417/2006

MONDAY THIS  13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

Dr. M. Muneeshwar,

S/o. Mr. M.Munaiah,

No.67, Pillaiyar Koil Street,

Officer Colony, Porur,

Chennai 600 116.                                            .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

M/s. Home Life Furniture Company,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

No.153, Eldoms Road,

Teynampet,

Chennai 600 018.                                            .. Opposite party

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :   M/s. Kayanandhan         

Counsel for opposite party      :   M/s. M.Selvaraju & another

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to rectify the defects of the TV cabinet or to replace the defective TV cabinetor alternatively to return the entire cost of the TV cabinet of Rs.28,789/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

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

         The complainant submit that  he has purchased  a TV cabinet from the opposite party on 25.6.2004 for a sum for Rs.28,789/-.    Further the complainant state that the said TV. Cabinet was not functioned properly.  Due to the TV cabinet lower plate was swollen unevenly and making the doors of the cupboard to struck and making the complainant unable to use the lower portion of the cabinet and one of the Glass chambers on side glass was separate from the wooden contact surface, where the Glass usually pasted on the wooden frame.   The complainant contacted the opposite party for several times but the opposite party has not responded properly. Despite of several demands made by the complainant but the opposite party did not rectify the TV cabinet.  Thereafter the complainant sent letter dated 12.4.2006 calling upon the opposite party to rectify the cabinet; since the opposite party has not rectified the defects.   On 19.5.2006 the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party for which the opposite party sent any reply or as not come forward to rectify the defects.    As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the   opposite party is  as follows:

The  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite party state that this forum is having no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.   Further the opposite party state that the complainant placed an order for purchase of T.V. cabinet after due  inspection and satisfaction of the said T.V. cabinet which is a product of the opposite party.    It is also the normal practice of the opposite party that once goods sold cannot be taken back or replaced under any circumstances.  The opposite party also state that  it is true fact that the TV cabinet was purchased after due inspection by the complainant and even after purchase it was fitted to his satisfaction.  It seems that the TV cabinet was mishandled by the opposite party and he want to shift the blame on the complainant.  No furniture company will give life time warranty to wooden furniture.  The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Act.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and no documents marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to rectify the defects of the TV cabinet or to replace the defective TV cabinet  or alternatively to return the entire cost of the TV cabinet of Rs.28,789/- as prayed for?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

 

5. POINTS 1 & 2 :

            Both parties has not turned up to advance any oral arguments for long time.   The complainant filed his written arguments.  The complainant pleaded in the complaint and contended that he has purchased  a TV cabinet from the opposite party on 25.6.2004 for a sum for Rs.28,789/- as per Ex.A1.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the said TV. Cabinet was not functioned properly,  Due to the TV cabinet’s lower plate was swollen unevenly and making the doors of the cupboard to struck and making the complainant unable to use the lower portion of the cabinet and one of the Glass chambers on side glass was separate from the wooden contact surface, where the Glass usually pasted on the wooden frame.   The complainant contacted the opposite party for several times but the opposite party has not responded properly.     Despite of several requests and demands made by the complainant,  the opposite party did not rectify the TV cabinet.   On 10.12.2005 one mechanic from the company of the opposite party visited to the complainant address and noted the defects of the TV cabinet and submitted a report without any details as per Ex.A4 and he is unable to rectify the same.   Thereafter the complainant sent letter dated 12.4.2006 calling upon the opposite party to rectify the cabinet; since the opposite party has not rectified the defects,  on 19.5.2006 the complainant issued a legal notice Ex.A5 claiming for due rectification of the T.V. cabinet and alternatively refund of cost of the T.V. cabinet for which the opposite party sent any reply or has not come forward to rectify the defects.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file this compliant claiming cost of the TV amount and compensation.  

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that this forum is having no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.   But the opposite party has not adduced any reason to prove the alleged want of jurisdiction.   Further the opposite party contended that the complainant placed an order for purchase of T.V. cabinet after due  inspection and satisfaction of the said T.V. cabinet which is a product of the opposite party.    It is also the normal practice of the opposite party that once goods sold cannot be taken back or replaced under any circumstances.   But in this case it is apparently clear that the T.V. cabinet having substantial defects namely 1) the TV cabinet lower plate was swollen unevenly and making the doors of the cupboard to struck and making the complainant unable to use the lower portion of the cabinet 2) one of the Glass chambers on side glass was separate from the wooden contact surface, where the Glass usually pasted on the wooden frame.  It should be rectified or shall be replaced.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the claim is barred by limitation.  The claim is filed after two years of the purchase of the T.V. cabinet.  But on a careful perusal of the service report Ex.A4 dated 10.12.2005 it is very clear that the claim is not barred by limitation; since the deficiency of service is  caused within in the period of limitation.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the relief of claiming a sum of Rs.28,789/- towards the cost of the TV cabinet and compensation of Rs.50,000/- is highly and exorbitant and is unsustainable.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall rectify the defects of the complaint mentioned TV Cabinet  within one month failing which the opposite party is shall pay a sum of Rs.28,789/- towards cost of the TV Cabinet and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-  towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party shall rectify the defects of the complaint mentioned TV Cabinet  within one month failing which the opposite party is shall pay a sum of Rs.28,789/- (Rupees Twenty eight thousand seven hundred and eight nine only) towards cost of the TV Cabinet and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts 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 13^h day  of  November 2017.  

 

 MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 25.6.2004  - Copy of order form.

Ex.A2- 12.4.2006  - Copy of letter from the complainant to the opp. party.

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A4-10.12.2005 - Copy of service report.

Ex.A5- 19.5.2006  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A6- 25.5.2006  - Copy of reply notice.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -    .. Nil..  

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.