Order No. 12 dt. 15/05/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased furniture from o.p. no.1 being the manufacturer of those furniture at a price of Rs.93,087/-. Immediately after the purchase of the same the complainant noticed that there was defect in those articles. The complainant brought it to the notice of o.ps. but no fruitful result was achieved. It was further stated that the product delivered to the complainant was of very poor quality and o.ps. by practicing fraud upon the complainant provided the articles to the complainant and the quality of those articles was poor and thereby the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the money paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.93,087/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.
The o.p. no.1 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant purchased furniture from o.p. no.1 and paid an amount of Rs.93,087/-. The articles were delivered as per the terms of the contract the complainant had with o.ps. The complainant purchased some furniture including a bed side table and on inspection of the said table it was found chipped off from a side. The complainant while informed the said fact to o.ps. they were inclined for replacement of the said table. The complainant was requested to send a image of the same for reference. The o.p. no.1 received the said image from the complainant on 3.11.16 and was requested for replacement of the entire unit which was not accepted by o.p. no.1 since the defect in the said table was found minor in nature. Subsequently the complainant informed the o.p. no.1 through e-mail, but o.p. no.1 answered those e-mail and requested the complainant to received the service to be provided by them, but the complainant did not assist the o.p. no.1 by taking the service from any technician of o.p. no.1. On the basis of the said fact the complainant all on a sudden filed this case praying for refund of the amount. Since the case filed by the complainant is a manufactured one and in order to have illegal financial gain against the o.ps. filed this case. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.2 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.2.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the furniture from o.p. no.1?
- Whether there was any defect in those furniture?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The complainant argued that the complainant purchased furniture from o.p. no.1 being the manufacturer of those furniture at a price of Rs.93,087/-. Immediately after the purchase of the same the complainant noticed that there was defect in those articles. The complainant brought it to the notice of o.ps. but no fruitful result was achieved. It was further stated that the product delivered to the complainant was of very poor quality and o.ps. by practicing the fraud upon the complainant provided the articles to the complainant and the quality of those articles was poor and thereby the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the money paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.93,087/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.
The o.p. no.1 argued that the complainant purchased furniture from o.p. no.1 and paid an amount of Rs.93,087/-. The articles were delivered as per the terms of the contract the complainant had with o.ps. The complainant purchased some furniture including a bed side table and on inspection of the said table it was found chipped off from a side. The complainant while informed the said fact to o.ps. they were inclined for replacement of the said table. The complainant was requested to send a image of the same for reference. The o.p. no.1 received the said image from the complainant on 3.11.16 and was requested for replacement of the entire unit which was not accepted by o.p. no.1 since the defect in the said table was found minor in nature. Subsequently the complainant informed the o.p. no.1 through e-mail, but o.p. no.1 answered those e-mail and requested the complainant to received the service to be provided by them, but the complainant did not assist the o.p. no.1 by taking the service from any technician of o.p. no.1. On the basis of the said fact the complainant all on a sudden filed this case praying for refund of the amount. Since the case filed by the complainant is a manufactured one and in order to have illegal financial gain against the o.ps. filed this case. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased furniture from o.p. no.1 and paid an amount of Rs.93,087/-. After the purchase of the same the complainant lodged complaint to o.ps. with regard to the defect in the bed side table which was entertained by o.ps. and asked the complainant to send the image of the defect of the said table and on inspection of the said table o.p. no.1 noticed that there was minor defect for which o.p. no.1 wanted to remove the said defect by sending a technician from their end, but the complainant did not accept the said proposal, on the contrary prayed for entire refund of the amount. The complainant has claimed that the quality of the product was poor in nature, but in order to substantiate the said allegation against the o.ps. the complainant could not produce any evidence to that effect that the furniture provided by o.p. no.1 was a poor quality. The complainant could not bring any evidence of any expert to that effect. Moreover, from the evidence on record it appears that o.p. no.1 extended the hand of cooperation to the complainant for rendering service so that the defect can be removed, but the complainant all on a sudden threatened the o.ps. and claimed the entire amount from o.ps. by filing this case. On perusal of the materials on record we find that the allegation made by the complainant has got no substance excepting the defect that was found in the said table which o.p. no.1 admittedly wanted to remove the same, but due to non cooperation of the complainant the said defect could not be rectified. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that in order to pacify the claim of the complainant the o.p. no.1 is directed to replace the bed side table in question purchased by the complainant not the defect as noticed by o.p. no.1. Since the complainant had to file this case for redressal of his grievance, therefore the complainant will be entitled to get compensation and litigation cost. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.171/2017 is allowed on contest against the o.p. no.1 and allowed ex parte against the o.p. no.2 with cost. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to replace the bed side table in question with a new one and are also directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
The complainant is also directed to refund the bed side table in question to o.ps. after compliance of the aforesaid order by o.ps.
