PER HON’BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the instance of complainant to impeach the final order/judgment being order No. 12 dated 15.05.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (in short, Ld. District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 171/2017. By the impugned order the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the appellant with the directions upon the respondents to replace bed side table in question with a new one and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 500/- within 30 days from date of communication of the order, in default, the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. till its realisation.

          The appellant herein being complainant lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum stating that OP No. 1 is the showroom (sales and service department of OP No. 2) and OP No. 2 is the manufacturer of  furniture and owner/ principal of OP No. 1. The complainant has stated that on 29.09.2016 he paid a sum of Rs. 93,087/- to  OP No. 1 by Pay Order being full amount in advance for one prudent king size bed, one bed side table, one prudent three doors  wardrobe and one prudent two doors wardrobe as per their quotation dated 10.09.2016. The said articles were delivered in the house of the complainant on 27.10.2016. The complainant has stated that there were some defects on those articles for which the representative of the company assured him to do the needful. However, receiving no response from them, on 03.11.2016 the complainant sent a mail with some objections requesting to replace the product. On 07.11.2016 the OPs acknowledged the same and asked for some time to replace and rectify the defects,. The complainant has alleged that the product delivered   is of very poor quality but the company mislead in selling the product as skin of the product is like paper and it has also come out from many areas. However, the request and persuasions of the complainants for replacement of those articles were not heeded to. Hence, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for following reliefs, viz.-(a) to direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs. 93,087/- being the amount paid by him with interest till the date of payment; (b) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony; (c) to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation.

          The respondent No. 1 being Opposite Party No. 1 by filing written version has stated that the complainant purchased the furniture from them and paid amount of Rs. 93,087/- for which they delivered the articles as per  terms of the contract. The OP No. 1 has stated that on inspection it was found that the side table was chipped off from his side. On the request of OP No. 1 the complainant sent an image on 03.11.2016 and made a request for replacement of the entire unit which was not accepted by OP No. 1 as the defect was found minor in nature. The OP No. 1 has stated that the complainant has lodged the complaint just for illegal gain and as such it deserves dismissal.

          The respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 did not appear on contest and as such the Ld. District Forum proceeded to decide the case against OP No. 2 ex parte.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the OPs, as indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Award made by the Ld. District Forum, complainant has come up in this commission with the instant appeal.

          Mr. Souvik Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the articles provided to the appellant was of poor quality and in this regard images were mailed to the respondent No. 1 on 03.11.2016 and the respondent No. 1 acknowledged the defects. Subsequently, fungus emerged on the bed, wardrobe and side table and it was presented to the Ld. District Forum on 12.09.2017 along with photographs and the reply given by respondent No. 1 that Fungus might be for damp or excessive moisture. Ld. Advocate for the appellant  has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate the real scenario in adjudicating  the dispute. Therefore, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant has made a prayer to remit the matter on remand in order to enable the appellant/complainant to file an application for appointment of expert  in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act to prove the alleged defect beyond hilt.

           Per contra, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has contended that there was no major defect in the articles supplied to the appellant. However, they are ready to do the minor repair works on the articles and further they are ready to comply with the order of the Ld. District Forum.

          The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the complaint has observed-

          “Considering the submission  of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased furniture form OP No. 1 and paid an amount of Rs. 93,087/-. After the purchase of the same the complainant lodged complaint to OPs with regard to the defect in the bed side table which was entertained by OPs  and asked the complainant to send the image of the defect of the said table and on inspection of the said table OP No. 1 noticed that there was minor defect for which OP 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 OPs the complainant could not produce any evidence to that effect that the furniture provided by O no. 1 was a poor quality. The complainant could not bring any evidence of any expert to that effect.”

          We do not find to hold anything contrary to the view of Ld. District Forum because when the appellant/complainant alleges defect of articles supplied  to him, it was bounden duty on the part of him to prove that those articles were defective. The fact remains that the appellant/complainant did not pray for appointment of any expert to prove the allegations made by him that the articles supplied  to him were defective.

          However, there may be some minor defects which may occur for different reasons, for which there is hardly any reason to refund amount of articles. The purchaser should have been careful at the time of purchase and after purchase on consideration, he cannot claim refund of money on the ground of its poor quality without proof  of the same.

          In view of the above, the instant appeal stands disposed of with modification of the impugned order only to the extent that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 shall repair the defects  of the articles delivered to the appellant/complainant within 30 days from date. However, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have to replace the bed side table, to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 500/- as per order of the Ld. District Forum.

          With the above observations and direction, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I for information.