Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/187/2012

Anna Mathew, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Style Home Centre - Opp.Party(s)

S.Devika & T.mohan

14 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 21.03.2012

                                                                          Date of Order : 14.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 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

 

C.C. No.187 /2012

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 14^TH DAY OF MAY 2018

                                 

Ms. Anna Mathew,

D/o. Mr. T.T. Mathew,

Flat No.8, Julies Apartments,

No.11 Pycrofts Garden Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                .. Complainant.                                                  

                                                                                        ..Versus..

Life Style Home Centre,

Represented by its Authorised Signatory,

No.81, T.T.K. Road,

Alwarpet,

Chennai – 600 018.                                              ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant       :  M/s. S. Devika & another

For Opposite party                :  Mr. N. Sivakumar,

                                                  Authorised Representative

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking  refund of Rs.19,950/- being the cost price of the chair, to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for loss, sufferings and unfair trade practice and to pay the cost Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

 

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

The complainant purchased a revolving chair for a sum of Rs.19,950/- on 14.12.2010 with warranty for a period of one year.   During the 3^rd week of October 2011, one of the legs of the chair collapsed.   Thereby, the complainant was not able to use the chair.   Immediately the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party.     The opposite party after receiving information, promised to send a carpenter after Deepavali; but failed to do so.   But after repeated requests and demands, the opposite party sent his representative one Mr. Saravanan on 29.10.2011.     The said representative inspected the chair and accepted to replace the same.   Thereafter, the opposite party has not taken any step for replacement. The repeated calls of the complainant received by the persons and also answered namely Mr. Paul and Mr. Anto are not available.   After inordinate delay, Mr.Paul and Mr. Anto the staff of the opposite party also promised to replace the chair and offer suitable exchange offer.   The rude and hard words of Mr. Paul and Mr. Anto caused great mental agony.   Even after repeated requests and demands of the complainant, the opposite party has not replaced the chair.  Hence the complainant issued notices dated:09.12.2011 and:21.12.2011 to the opposite party for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:26.12.2011.           But the opposite party has not come forward neither to rectify the defects in the chair nor made replacement.   Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case. 

  2.   The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party states that on receipt of the complaint from the complainant their representatives Mr. Anto and Mr. Paul had called the complainant and offered her the option to purchase another product of the similar value or accept the value of the product as refund.  Further they also visited the residence of the complainant and spoke to the complainant but she refused the offer categorically.   Even now the opposite party is willing to offer replacement of the furniture as per the terms and conditions of the warranty governing the sale / contract.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked.  In spite of sufficient time is given, the opposite party has not come forward to file his proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  Hence, it is concluded that there is no proof affidavit on the side of the opposite party.

4.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.19,950/- paid towards the cost price of the chair as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for sufferings and unfair trade practice with cost of Rs.15,000/- as prayed for?

5.     On point:-

The opposite party after entering appearance filed its written version  but has not filed his proof affidavit or documents  to prove the contents raised in the written version.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel.   Perused he records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit of complainant, documents and written arguments of the complainant.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased a revolving chair as per the specification in Ex.A8, photographs for a sum of Rs.19,950/- on 14.12.2010 with warranty for a period of one year.   Ex.A1 is the copy of Purchase Bill cum Warranty.  During the 3^rd week of October 2011, one of the legs of the chair collapsed.  Thereby, the complainant was not able to use the chair. Immediately the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party.   The broken leg also shown in Ex.A8, photograph.  The opposite party after receiving information, promised to sent a carpenter after Deepavali but failed to do so.  Even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite party sent his representative one Mr. Saravanan on 29.10.2011. The said representative inspected the chair and accepted to replace the same.  Thereafter, the opposite party has not taken any steps for replacement. The repeated calls of the complainant received by the opposite party’s persons answered Mr. Paul and Mr. Anto are not available.   After inordinate delay, Mr.Paul and Mr. Anto the staff of the opposite party also promised to replace the chair and offered suitable exchange offer.  The rude and hard words of Mr. Paul and Mr. Anto caused great mental agony.

6.     Even after repeated requests and demands of the complainant, the opposite party has not replaced the chair.  The credit note offer also very futile. Hence the complainant issued notice dated:09.12.2011 and addendum dated:21.12.2011 to the opposite party as per Ex.A2, for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:26.12.2011, Ex.A3. Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case.  It is very clear from the records and documents that, the chair was damaged during the warranty period.  Without any substantial reason, the opposite party has not taken any step either for repair or replacement  which amounts to deficiency in service.  The credit note offer of the opposite party itself proves the unfair trade practice that is attempting to sell other articles of similar nature.  The complainant is claiming to refund the cost price of the chair with a compensation of Rs.30,000/-.  The contention raised by the opposite party in his written version has not been proved or substantiated by way of document.  It is very clear from the written version that they sold the chair for the said value of 19,950/- and its damages during the warranty period and neither it was repaired nor it was replaced proved the deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall return a sum of Rs.19,950/- with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-  to the complainant.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.19,950/-   (Rupees nineteen thousand nine hundred and fifty only) being the cost price of the revolving chair and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin 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 Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 14^th day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	14.10.2010	Copy of the purchase bill with warranty card
Ex.A2	09.12.2011 & 21.12.2011	Copy of legal notices from the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party
Ex.A3	26.12.2011	Copy of reply from the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A4	19.11.2011	Copy of e-mail sent to the customer care of the opposite party company
Ex.A5	02.12.2011	Copy of e-mail sent to the opposite party through the complainant’s Counsel
Ex.A6	04.12.2011	Copy of e-mail by Mr. Ravi to the complainant’s Counsel
Ex.A7		Copy of quotation which photograph showing similar model chair in other stores
Ex.A8		Photographs

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  CLOSED

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT