This is a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.P. to pay Rs.16,100/- with interest as price of furniture, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost totaling Rs.22,100/-.

The complainant’s case is in brief is that the complainant purchased an iron made dining table with five chairs at the cost of Rs.16,100/- from the O.P. who issued one estimate cum money receipt in that connection in favour of the complainant. The O.P. delivered the said furniture in the house of the petitioner by his own vehicle. 15 days after such purchase,  the leg of the said table was found rusty. The petitioner informed the matter to the O.P. but the O.P. did not pay any heed to the petitioner’s compliant and did not  provide any service. At the time of sale of such goods, the O.P. told that said furniture was

covered with one year warranty starting from the date of purchase on  any kind of disputes related to colour, discolour, crack rust etc. except glass.

The O.P. contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the complaint and this case is barred by limitation. The O.P. has further stated that the complainant, knowing about the advantages and disadvantages of the said furniture, knowing that the furniture was not covered by any guaranty or warranty and knowing that the furniture sold was not returnable, was agree to buy the same and accordingly the O.P. sold such furniture to the complainant. However, giving effect to the complaint, the O.P. is/ was  ready to repair the leg of the  crashed table to save his goodwill but the complainant refused the O.P. and the O.P. has/had no negligence or deficiency in his service on his part and accordingly this case is liable to dismissed with cost.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

We carefully consider the contents of the petition of complaint, W.V., documentary evidence on record and arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers for the parties.

It appears from the complaint, photocopy of the relevant estimate worth Rs.16,100/- that the complainant purchased one iron body dining table with five chairs from the shop of the O.P., named and styled as “Kundu Steel & Furniture”, Sudarsanpur, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. It reveals that the complainant has not submitted any purchase memo or document showing any warranty or guaranty covering the goods purchased and showing terms & condition of the sale of the articles in question.

Actually, there is no evidence on record supporting the case of the complainant and showing the  deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. So the case of the complainant does not stand but as the O.P. has agreed to repair the leg of the  crashed table to save his goodwill, we are of the opinion that an award should be passed in favour of the complainant directing the O.P. to repair the leg of the  crashed table.

Accordingly the complaint succeeds in part.

Fees paid is correct.  

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

that the complaint case No. CC-100/2012 be and the same is allowed in part on contest without cost against O.P., accordingly the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. to repair the leg of the  crashed table within one month from this day failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this award in execution in accordance with law against the O.P.

Let  true copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.