Maharashtra

Additional DCF, Mumbai(Suburban)

CC/135/2021

MR AMIT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

INSARAF FURNITURE - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

29 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MUMBAI SUBURBAN ADDITIONAL
Administrative Building, 3rd Floor, Near Chetana College
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051
 
Complaint Case No. CC/135/2021
( Date of Filing : 30 Jul 2021 )
 
1. MR AMIT KUMAR
R/O 302 SABARI PALM VIEW SION TROMBEY ROAD CHEMBUR MUMBAI 400071
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. INSARAF FURNITURE
SARAF FURNITURE RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA KALYANPURA ROAD SARDARSHAHR 331403 RAJASTHAN INDIA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. PRADEEP G. KADU PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. KANCHAN S. GANGADHARE MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Complainant present in person
......for the Complainant
 
Exparte
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 29 Apr 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Per Smt. Kanchan S. Gangadhare, Hon’ble Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Brief facts of the case are as under :-

1)                The Complainant ordered queen size bed with drawer and storage from Opponent on dated 22nd February, 2021 vide Order No. INSF3726 42133.  On same day, the Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to the Opponent as advance and on 6th March, 2021 paid the remaining amount of Rs.25,999/-. The said bed was delivered to the Complainant on 18th March, 2021 in a completely damaged condition. The Complainant immediately complained about it to the Opponent by sending email along with photographs.

2)                The Opponent sent technician to Complainant’s place to check condition of the bed. He checked damaged bed, took photographs of it and assured the Complainant that he will submit the report for replacement. However, the Complainant’s complaint remains unsolved.

3)                The Complainant contacted the Opponent numerous times by email and on telephone and demanded a refund of money. However, the Opponent did not give any satisfactory solution. Being aggrieved by the negligent service and unfair trade practice by the Opponent, the Complainant constrained to file the present complaint and claiming full refund of price of Rs. 35,000/-, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation charges.

4)                The Opponent duly served with notice. In spite of several chances given to the Opponent to appear, he did not appear. Hence ex-parte order has been passed against the Opponent.

5)                In view of the above facts, considering argument of the Complainant, documents on record, following points arise for our determination and our finding thereon as are under :

FINDINGS

Sr.

No.

Points

Findings

1.

Whether the Complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the Opponent ?

Yes

2.

Whether the Complainant has proved that there is defect in bed and deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent ?

Yes

3.

Whether the Complainant has proved Opponent running unfair trade practice ?

Yes

4.

Whether complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed ?

Partly Yes

5.

What order?

As per final order

REASONS

6) As to Point No.1 :- The Complainant had purchased queen size bed for consideration of Rs.35,999/-. The Complainant has filed Invoice No.SFN7172133-26117 dated 27th February, 2021 on Annexure ‘B’ Page No.17. Hence, it is clear that Complainant is the ‘Consumer’ of the Opponent.  Therefore, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.

7) As to Point No.2 & 3 :- It is contention of the Complainant that, he ordered queen size bed with drawer and storage from Opponent on dated 22nd February, 2021 vide Order No.INSF3726 42133. On the day of booking, he had paid Rs.10,000/- as advance and on 6th March, 2021, he had paid the remaining amount of Rs.25,999/- to the Opponent.  In support of this contention, the Complainant has filed payment confirmation email on Page No.15 and 16 respectively. Full payment Invoice dated 27th February 2021 is also filed on Page No.17

8)                According to the Complainant, the bed was delivered to him on 18th March, 2021 in a completely damaged condition. Immediately, he intimated about it to the Opponent by sending email along with photographs. Perused the email dated 18th March 2021 filed on Page No.21 which reveals the fact that there were lots of crack in the bed and lamination is removed in some parts of it.

9)                The Opponent informed the Complainant by email dated 22nd March, 2021 that the Senior Technician will visit to resolve the issue and accordingly he sent one technician to complainant’s place on 24th March 2021. He clicked the photographs of damaged part of the bed and assured the Complainant that he will submit a report for replacing the bed. This email filed by the Complainant on Page No.25. On 26th March, 2021 and 30th March, 2021, the Complainant sent email to the Opponent regarding deficiency in service and demanded the complete refund of entire consideration paid for bed. After perusing those emails, it is clear that defect in bed has not been resolved by the opponent nor refunded the full consideration amount.

         On the basis of above discussion and evidence on record, we are of the opinion that, the Opponent delivered damaged bed to the Complainant and despite of numerous phone calls and emails to the Opponent to fix the issue, it remains unresolved. The act of the Opponent in selling such type of defective bed amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence we answer Point No. 2 and 3 in affirmative.

10) As to Point No.4 :- The Complainant claimed full refund of bed amount i.e. Rs. 35,999/-. It is clear from the mail trail and photographs attached on record that bed was delivered in damaged condition. We are of the opinion to grant full consideration amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the Complainant. It will be unjust to keep bed with the Complainant once he receives the full consideration amount. Hence, we are of the opinion that, on receiving full consideration and compensation amount, the Complainant should immediately return bed to the Opponent and cost for the same will be bear by the Opponent. The Complainant has received damaged bed after paying full consideration for it. Hence, the Complainant must have suffered mental agony and hardship. The Complainant has claimed Rs.20,000/- towards it which we find exorbitant. We find it proper to grant Rs. 7,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation charges.  Hence, we answer Point No. 4 in partly affirmative and accordingly passed the following order.

ORDER

  1. Consumer Complaint No.CC/135/2021 is partly allowed.
  2. The Opponent is directed to refund total consideration of bed Rs.35,999/- (Rs.Thirty five thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine Only) to the Complainant.
  3. The Opponent is also directed to pay Rs.7,000/- (Rs.Seven thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three thousand only) towards litigation charges to the Complainant.
  4. The order under operative Clause No.1 & 2 shall be complied with within a period of fourty five days from the date of receipt of this order else it will carry interest at the rate of  9% per annum till its actual realization.
  5. It is directed to the Complainant to return the bed immediately to the Opponent on receiving the amount mentioned in operative order under Clause No.1 & 2 at the cost of Opponent.
  6. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. PRADEEP G. KADU]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. KANCHAN S. GANGADHARE]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.